SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[Hehehe]

No one is convicting Kavanaugh. He is not on trial. This is a job interview. One which he blustered, lied and shouted his way through.

He's on trial in the court of public opinion. Besides, the FBI is investigating him, right? I guess I'll just wait and see what they say

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Here's quite a lot of evidence that Kavanaugh lied and was evasive throughout his testimony.

SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

Also, Synsensa linked to a very thorough article that went through every line of his testimony and pointed out all of the instances of perjury that Kavanaugh committed. Unfortunately it is quite long but a lot of that content has been repeated here.

@Hehehe
It's also exceedingly difficult to refute you when you don't actually make any claims other than this whole thing is a witch hunt. Since we've covered a lot of evidence at length, the burden is on you to produce your own evidence that we're wrong on specific claims. Instead you claim evidence is not evidence and the whole things is a Democratic witch hunt.

 

[metalhead]

I don't care enough to read all 100+ pages. I'd simply like to get past all the bipartisan mudslinging and look at the evidence myself. That's why I asked for it.

Watch the testimony. Read the transcripts. Understand that nobody, not even the Republicans who are going to vote for Kavanaugh, and not even the Republican prosecutor brought into question her, says they think Dr. Ford was anything but 100% truthful in her testimony. Also understand that Brett Kavanaugh lied about a great many things, and crucially provided evidence corroborating the claim that he attended a small gathering with friends of the kind, and including some of the named parties, that Dr. Ford described in her testimony.

Then, recognize that in a court of law, if you have an accuser very credibly testifying that the accused did something, and the accused being repeatedly dishonest under oath, that a jury will be instructed - absent any other evidence - that they can vote to convict solely on the testimony of the accuser. They will also be instructed that it is permissible to conclude that the accused is lying about their denial if they have been found to have lied about other things in the course of their testimony.

Of course, Dr. Ford also has 4 witnesses who submitted sworn affidavits stating that she told them well before he was ever nominated to the Supreme Court that she had been sexually assaulted by a federal judge in high school, and 2 of those witnesses said she named Brett Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her.

Kavanaugh has not produced a single piece of evidence indicating that such a thing did not happen, or could not have happened. His witnesses have only gone as far as to say they don't remember it happening, and at least one of those has also said she believes Dr. Ford's allegations. His only actual evidence of innocence is his testimony, which is riddled with lies and dodges.

The case before us, just from what is in the Senate record, contains evidence sufficient for a conviction. And that's without the benefit of a full investigation, without the questioning of other witnesses, without an attempt to gather evidence which might help to prove Dr. Ford's case.

Yeah well forgive me if I'm not ready to convict a man with no evidence

I don't know why you keep insisting there is no evidence. I've told you repeatedly, the testimony of the two parties alone would be considered sufficient evidence to convict in court, if a jury found that it established beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser was telling the truth. The judge would instruct them as such.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He's on trial in the court of public opinion.

No, he isn't. The public may be deciding whether to hire him, through the representative process, but he is not on trial. US law provides absolutely no avenue for taking a man to trial for a sexual assault that went unreported for thirty years, unless multiple witnesses were available and come forward.

 

[Hehehe]

Watch the testimony. Read the transcripts. Understand that nobody, not even the Republicans who are going to vote for Kavanaugh, and not even the Republican prosecutor brought into question her, says they think Dr. Ford was anything but 100% truthful in her testimony. Also understand that Brett Kavanaugh lied about a great many things, and crucially provided evidence corroborating the claim that he attended a small gathering with friends of the kind, and including some of the named parties, that Dr. Ford described in her testimony.

Then, recognize that in a court of law, if you have an accuser very credibly testifying that the accused did something, and the accused being repeatedly dishonest under oath, that a jury will be instructed - absent any other evidence - that they can vote to convict solely on the testimony of the accuser. They will also be instructed that it is permissible to conclude that the accused is lying about their denial if they have been found to have lied about other things in the course of their testimony.

Of course, Dr. Ford also has 4 witnesses who submitted sworn affidavits stating that she told them well before he was ever nominated to the Supreme Court that she had been sexually assaulted by a federal judge in high school, and 2 of those witnesses said she named Brett Kavanaugh as the person who assaulted her.

Kavanaugh has not produced a single piece of evidence indicating that such a thing did not happen, or could not have happened. His witnesses have only gone as far as to say they don't remember it happening, and at least one of those has also said she believes Dr. Ford's allegations. His only actual evidence of innocence is his testimony, which is riddled with lies and dodges.

The case before us, just from what is in the Senate record, contains evidence sufficient for a conviction. And that's without the benefit of a full investigation, without the questioning of other witnesses, without an attempt to gather evidence which might help to prove Dr. Ford's case.

Thank you. This is all I ever wanted to know. With the ongoing FBI investigation, surely we will see a conviction if there are grounds for one.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My claims -

Kavanaugh lied about never having been at a party with the people Ford claimed to be at the party. His calendar entry on July 1st shows he was at such a gathering.

Kavanaugh misrepresented the geography of where these events happen to make it seem that Ford and these events were not close to him. All the events happened in a 2-5 mile radius.

Kavanaugh lied about Ford knowing him or any of his friends. She dated one of his friends and they had many mutual friends and aquaintances.

Kavanaugh lied about blacking out and behaving badly while drunk. Multiple people who knew him have come forward and said as much.

Kavanaugh misrepresented the testimony of Ranata. He quote her from before she knew about what all his buddies wrote about her in his yearbook and at the same time claims that his quote of her proves she denied the accusations. When she found out about the yearbook she had a lot of not so flattering things to say about him and she never denied the accusations, just said she didn't know about them which is not the same thing.

Kavanaugh, at several instances, falsely claimed that the testimony of certain people denied that the alleged incident happened. As with Renata above, this is not true. Several people denied knowing about the event but they did not deny the event could have happened.

Kavanaugh opened his testimony by claiming this was a Democratic/Clinton conspiracy and that he would get even with the Democrats over this. That alone means he cannot be impartial and should be ineligible for office. He shouldn't be a judge, much less a SCOTUS judge.

Kavanaugh was evasive about many questions and outright refused to answer them. This includes whether or not he knew he was in Mark Judge's book, how much he drank, if he ever blacked out and many other issues.

This is in sharp contrast with Ford who voluntarily pointed out lapses in her own memory which may partially exonerate Kavanaugh. Ford has had a consistent story and answered all questions she was asked.

Kavanaugh lied about knowing about any of the accusations before they came public. He in fact rallied his team to reach out to potential witnesses to get them on record about what a great guy he was before the allegations came out.

Thank you. This is all I ever wanted to know. With the ongoing FBI investigation, surely we will see a conviction if there are grounds for one.

He's not on trial! We've told you this many times already.

 

[Zelig]

You see how these kinds of accusations against Kavanaugh could be used for political gain, right? You understand that, yes? As for the evidence itself, there's what? Supposed inconsistencies in his story? Ok then


Yeah well forgive me if I'm not ready to convict a man with no evidence

Why do you keep saying this? It's already been pointed out that eyewitness testimony is evidence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thank you. This is all I ever wanted to know. With the ongoing FBI investigation, surely we will see a conviction if there are grounds for one.

To get a conviction there has to be a trial. Despite your wailing about "court" of public opinion, there has not been and will not be a trial.

If Kavanaugh had not been nominated to the supreme court, Dr Ford, like most victims of sexual abuse would not have come forward. While a Democrat Senator has good reason to listen to her and take her case forward, a prosecutor would have tried to sound as sympathetic as they could manage while telling her there was nothing to be done for her, and she, like most victims of sexual abuse, knew that full well.

We now have the benefit of knowing that she is a totally credible witness, and that no lawyer with an ounce of sense would put Kavanaugh on the stand in his own defense. Without that knowledge no prosecutor in the country would press this case. That says nothing about whether Kavanaugh did or didn't do exactly what she says he did.

 

[Lexicus]

Thank you. This is all I ever wanted to know. With the ongoing FBI investigation, surely we will see a conviction if there are grounds for one.

Notice the pre-emptive goal post shifting. Kavanaugh is not on any kind of trial, so of course there will be no conviction, and Hehehe will claim to have been vindicated by the lack of a conviction.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Shrubbery? That sounds like Monty Python.

That's cause it's a word that's used in Monty Python: Holy Grail by "The Knights who say Ni"

I have never been hungover

You should seek appointment to the Supreme Court... cause that strikes me as the kind of thing a Republican nominee might say.

 

[Hehehe]

He's not on trial! We've told you this many times already.

To get a conviction there has to be a trial. Despite your wailing about "court" of public opinion, there has not been and will not be a trial.

If Kavanaugh had not been nominated to the supreme court, Dr Ford, like most victims of sexual abuse would not have come forward. While a Democrat Senator has good reason to listen to her and take her case forward, a prosecutor would have tried to sound as sympathetic as they could manage while telling her there was nothing to be done for her, and she, like most victims of sexual abuse, knew that full well.

We now have the benefit of knowing that she is a totally credible witness, and that no lawyer with an ounce of sense would put Kavanaugh on the stand in his own defense. Without that knowledge no prosecutor in the country would press this case. That says nothing about whether Kavanaugh did or didn't do exactly what she says he did.

Notice the pre-emptive goal post shifting. Kavanaugh is not on any kind of trial, so of course there will be no conviction, and Hehehe will claim to have been vindicated by the lack of a conviction.

If he really is guilty, why wouldn't they convict him? Or is it that the prosecution window has already ended? In any case, all I'm saying is, I'm sure the investigation will get to the bottom of this.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They can't convict him because the aggrieved have not filed criminal complaints. It is also likely that the statute of limitations have been passed for some of the allegations under the laws in effect at the time they happened.

The whole point was never to LOCK HIM UP! (to parrot Trump), it was to present evidence that he is not in fact eligible to sit on the Supreme Court.

Even without an FBI report, his behavior during his testimony and multiple instances of verifiable perjury disqualify him from office.

 

[BenitoChavez]

If he really is guilty, why wouldn't they convict him? Or is it that the prosecution window has already ended? In any case, all I'm saying is, I'm sure the investigation will get to the bottom of this.

There isn't enough evidence to convict in a criminal court. The standard to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and when all you have is testimony about a 30 year old event you can still have reasonable doubt. However, that doesn't mean you can't form an opinion on what probably happened. Given Kavanaugh's statements and behavior lately there is plenty of evidence to do just that.

I've stated many times that I don't know the details of this case, and that I'd like to see the evidence.

Here is a quick recap of the case against Kavanaugh since you keep asking for it.

Kavanaugh has been accused by several women of sexual assault and/or harassment. The only woman who has testified before the Senate was Dr. Ford. She said that Kavanaugh and another man named Mark Judge assaulted her when they were in high school. People who know Dr. Ford have said that she told them her story even before Kavanaugh was announced as a Supreme Court nominee. This helps her case because why would she make up this story before anyone knew who Kavanaugh was?

There was a letter signed by 60 women who knew Kavanaugh that attested they never saw him do anything resembling what he is accused of. However, because someone doesn't abuse some woman in public doesn't mean he couldn't have abused other woman in private. In Kavanaugh's testimony to the senate he had calendars he used to record his schedule from when he was a teenager. Ford says that when she was assaulted, it was at an informal gathering which isn't something you would record in a schedule so the calendars aren't really evidence of anything.

There is also a separate concern apart form the assault allegation which is if Kavanaugh has the right temperament and judgement to be a Supreme Court justice. He misrepresented statements given from alleged witnesses which is a big no-no when you are a judge. He specifically said that 4 witnesses said that the assault did not occur when what three of them actually said is that they didn't remember it occurring. The 4th witness is Kavanaugh himself so you can't draw any conclusion that he denies it happening. Also, the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan. That is the idea anyway even though it doesn't match up with reality. However, he so extremely partisan that he openly accused the Clintons having something to do with the accusations brought against him which is just plain

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There isn't enough evidence to convict in a criminal court. The standard to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and when all you have is testimony about a 30 year old event you can still have reasonable doubt. However, that doesn't mean you can't form an opinion on what probably happened. Given Kavanaugh's statements and behavior lately there is plenty of evidence to do just that.

Actually, at this point there absolutely is enough evidence to convict. I'm not advocating he face trial for these allegations but if he were, he could be convicted. As others have pointed out, when the evidence is sworn testimony, juries are instructed that they may completely disregard the entire testimony of a person who has been shown to have lied at any point in their testimony.

Kavanaugh lied throughout the entire day and therefore the jury would only have the testimony of Ford and others to go on. While the testimony of some people do not directly implicate Kavanaugh, they also do not discredit Ford's accusations. They simply say they don't recall or know about the accusations, not that they didn't happen. Moreover, some people did testify that Ford made these accusations in private well before Kavanaugh was nominated.

There was a letter signed by 60 women who knew Kavanaugh that attested they never saw him do anything resembling what he is accused of. However, because someone doesn't abuse some woman in public doesn't mean he couldn't have abused other woman in private. In Kavanaugh's testimony to the senate he had calendars he used to record his schedule from when he was a teenager. Ford says that when she was assaulted, it was at an informal gathering which isn't something you would record in a schedule so the calendars aren't really evidence of anything.

Actually, the evidence is stronger than that. Even though this was an informal gathering there is one date (July 1) on Kavanaugh's calendar when he was at a party with the people Ford says where there. Kavanaugh repeatedly lied about the calendar to make the case that:

The party had to have been on a weekend (even though he doesn't remember the party)
And his calendar shows no weekend parties
-->Therefore it didn't happen.

July 1st was conveniently a weekday

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If he really is guilty, why wouldn't they convict him? Or is it that the prosecution window has already ended? In any case, all I'm saying is, I'm sure the investigation will get to the bottom of this.

Approximately one woman in three is a victim of sexual abuse. How many of them see their abuser, who really did do it, pronounced guilty in a court? Hardly any. "If he really is guilty, why wouldn't they convict him?" is an absolutely EXCELLENT question.

As to whether a hamstrung investigation will "get to the bottom" of anything, I am not particularly optimistic.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Approximately one woman in three is a victim of sexual abuse.

This and similar statistics were something I knew as an intellectual curiosity since forever. It was not until the #MeToo movement that I really knew these statistics.

Part of me used to discount those statistics and think they were somewhat inflated. I no longer think like that.

I am very glad that our society is dealing with all of this out in the open, finally. It's ugly and messy and painful but we need to deal with it.

 

[Lexicus]

The purpose of the "investigation", at least from the perspective of Republicans in Congress and the White House, is to give the appearance of doing due diligence - so that the "moderate" Republicans can get some cover for their rear ends - before they railroad Kavanaugh through.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The purpose of the "investigation", at least from the perspective of Republicans in Congress and the White House, is to give the appearance of doing due diligence - so that the "moderate" Republicans can get some cover for their rear ends - before they railroad Kavanaugh through.

Jeff Flake more or less said as much when he said that he needed this investigation to seem legitimate but also that he's still going to vote for Kavanaugh regardless of what is turned up.

He did give an interview later and say he'd vote against Kavanaugh if the investigation proves he lied under oath and I do think if nothing else, however. The investigation will show that he did lie about certain things beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So now the question is will McConnell cough up enough concessions in the form of earmarks that benefit Flake personally for him to still vote for Kavanaugh?

 

[Hygro]

That's cause it's a word that's used in Monty Python: Holy Grail by "The Knights who say Ni" You should seek appointment to the Supreme Court... cause that strikes me as the kind of thing a Republican nominee might say.

Not related but re-hearing Eddy Murphy's Cosby impression in light of events, I couldn't help but notice the Knights who say Ni sound like Murphy imitating Cosby.

But in a way, kind of related amirite?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't know why you keep insisting there is no evidence. I've told you repeatedly, the testimony of the two parties alone would be considered sufficient evidence to convict in court, if a jury found that it established beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser was telling the truth. The judge would instruct them as such.

Like I said in this post, the real issue here is what Conservatives and Republicans and the folks generally on Kavanaugh's side mean when they say "evidence" and "proof" is "you must demonstrate to my individual personal subjective satisfaction that her account of how the events happened is true", which of course, is impossible, because their minds are already made up.

They are just using "evidence" as a euphemism for "individual subjective satisfaction" or more generally "belief". When you point out that there is in fact a substantial amount of evidence against Kavanaugh, based on the legal definition of "evidence", they will then switch to using the word "proof" instead. Because they're not talking about evidence, they're really talking about their own subjective belief and (mis)using official sounding legal terms to obfuscate their partisanship-motivated subjective beliefs.

They have no comprehension of what "evidence" is, not in a legal sense... which would be fine, whateves... except that they are then simultaneously bringing up legal concepts like "convicting" Kavanaugh and demanding that criminal law standards like "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt" be applied to Kavanaugh's confirmation process. Saying "there's no evidence" when you clearly don't understand what evidence is, in a legal sense, completely undermines a claim that the legal, criminal standard of "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" should apply... because if you don't understand what "evidence" is, you certainly can't understand "proof of guilt".