bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

What do you suspect Kavanaugh lied about?

---

1. Whether he ever drank to the point of memory loss.
2. Whether he meant his yearbook reference to the Renate women as a sign of admiration vs. a boast that he had slept with her.
3. Whether his references to boofing and the devil's triangle in his his yearbook were to drinking games or to sexual innuendo.
4. Whether the yearbook reference to being part of the Beach Week ralphing club referred to frequent vomiting based on drinking too much or to problems handling spicy food.
5. Whether the drinking age in Maryland was 18 when he was 18.
6. Whether the young women of the Holton Arms school regularly socialized with the young men of Georgetown Prep.
7. Whether he knew he was a legacy student at yale despite claiming he had no connections.
8. Whether he knows that Mark Judge's "Bart O'Kvanaugh" character was actually a slightly fictionalized version of himself in high school.
9. Whether or the extent to which he was involved in the following during his time at the Bush White House: (1) the Pickering/Pryor nominations; (2) the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping program; and (3) the Bush Admin's detainee policy.
10. Whether he was aware of Judge Kozinski's harassment of clerks and habit of publishing inappropriate material.
11. Whether he knew he had emails stolen from the Democrats while he was trying to push Bush judicial nominees.

To be clear I don't think he "lied about all of that." It is just that he was either sufficiently evasive or other people have made credible contradictions such that I would like to know more.

As to caring abut Ford, I care in the sense that anyone who intentionally lies and damages others should face consequences. But that concern pales in comparison to protecting the integrity of the Supreme Court. Also, I don't see anyway we can ever know enough about the alleged assault for her claim to serve as a basis for keeping Kavanaugh off the Court. So if her claim is affirmatively disproven fine, good for him. But it won't change my mind about whether Kavanaugh is fit to serve. Answering my 11 categories above would.

---

All of your points listed above, including #12 in your next post have been addressed by multiple observers over the course of this confirmation period. I have to assume either 1) you already have an answer to what you think about each of those things and thus, nothing would change your mind (i.e. you think he lied and you are just phrasing it now as open-ended questions), or 2) you aren't really that curious enough to answer any of those things yourself.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I really know nothing about your true intent other than what comes across on this message board, if I were to give you an answer on each of those items, based solely on facts (what we know, what we don't) and also the law regarding perjury (since you said your are a lawyer), with each of those answers ending in either 1) he didn't lie or 2) there is no possible way to ever conclusively know or prove he lied, and thus the answer must be innocent until proven guilty, would your position change?

As a token of my good intent, I'll take one of the 12 right now:

"10. Whether he was aware of Judge Kozinski's harassment of clerks and habit of publishing inappropriate material."

Facts re: Kozinski:

• Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in 1991, and as is common in the legal profession, you keep in contact with people after you meet them. The judges circle is pretty small and the circuit judges all know each other.
• No lawsuit was brought (civil or criminal) regarding the allegations against Kozinski, but Kozinski "retired" (9th Circuit) after the allegations surfaced.
• The allegations involve up to 16 former 9th circuit clerks.
• (1) Heidi Bond clerked for Kozinski 2006-2007 and says Kozinski pulled her into his office, showed her porn, and asked whether it aroused her. Heidi Bond no longer practices law, but she is now a romance novelist writing under the name Courney Milan.
• (2) Emily Murphy did not clerk for Kozinski (she clerked for Judge Richard Paez), but states that at a reception of various clerks and judges in 2012, "[t]he group had been discussing training regimens, and Murphy said she commented that the gym in the 9th Circuit courthouse was nice because other people were seldom there. Kozinski, according to Murphy and two others present at the time who spoke to The Post, said that if that were the case, she should work out naked." (This account has been pretty well confirmed; other people in the conversation recall it and Murphy recounted the conversation in an email shortly after the incident).
• (3) U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Christine O.C. Miller said Kozinski fondled her in 1986.
• (4) Dahlia Lithwick, who clerked for another judge in the 9th Circuit in the mid-1990s, wrote in Slate about how Kozinski, upon learning she was in a hotel room, had asked her what she was wearing.
• (5) Nancy Rapoport, special counsel to the president of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas wrote in a personal blog post how the judge had invited her to drinks during her clerkship for another 9th Circuit judge and remarked: "What do single girls in San Francisco do for sex?"
• (6) A 33-year-old woman said that when she was a student at the University of Montana Law School in 2016, Kozinski came to speak at an event. She said she encountered Kozinski at a reception afterward, and Kozinski in an apparent attempt to see her name tag, which was partially obscured by her lapel "very deliberately put his finger on the other side of my breast, and moved it, with some pressure" toward the center.
• The other various allegations come from women who did not want to comment on the record or reveal any personally identifying information. Some, but not all of them clerked for Kozinski. The allegations range from an unwanted bear hug and kiss to pinches and squeezed breasts and other inappropriate behavior.
• All of these allegations were first publicized after Bond came forward in 2016.
• "The Post reached out to dozens of Kozinski's former clerks and externs for this report. Many of those who returned messages said that they experienced no harassment of any kind and that their experience which entailed grueling work into the wee hours of the morning every day was a rewarding one. They noted Kozinski's wry sense of humor."
• "All of the women The Post interviewed said they did not file formal complaints at the time."
• Kozinski was known across the legal community as someone with a lewd sense of humor and his opinions, particularly in the last decade became more and more irreverent.
• Kozinski does not deny that he has a crud sense of humor and he was the subject of a judicial investigation in 2008 after "the Los Angeles Times revealed that the judge had maintained an email list that he used to distribute crude jokes, some of them sexually themed, and that he had a publicly accessible website that contained pornographic images."
• • There is no evidence that Kavanaugh was either on the email list or ever received a forward (from someone else) of one of those emails, and Kavanaugh has denied ever receiving any of the emails.
• Kozinski does deny that he ever pulled an intern into his office alone to show her porn.

So, now the question is "What did Brett Kavanaugh know about this and when did he know it!"

• The more serious claims of sexual harrassment (requiring clerks to watch pornography privately with him in his office, etc.) all occurred more than a decade after Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski. (From Politico: "Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski nearly three decades ago, early in his time on the bench and before Kozinski is accused of having spoken and behaved inappropriately toward women.")
• Kavanaugh did work with Kennedy to hire Kennedy's clerks, which often came from Kozinski's office (just like Kavanaugh, many clerks would work for Kozinski and then Kennedy). So there was opportunity for him to find out from one of those clerks about Kozinski's behavior, but none of those clerks have come forward recounting any conversation with Kavanaugh about Kozinski's behavior (nor do we know of any clerks that accused Kozinski who also went on to clerk for Kennedy).
• None of the 16 women who have accused Kozinski about inappropriate behavior have stated that Kavanaugh knew about Kozinski's conduct.
• From Politico: ""After these allegations were reported in the press last year, I spoke with various former Kozinski clerks including Judge Kavanaugh. None of us, including Judge Kavanaugh, had heard of any of these troubling allegations," said one former Kozinski clerk."
• In July after Kavanaugh was nomiated, and when asked about what he knew of these allegations against Kozinski, "a White House spokesperson for the confirmation effort, Kerri Kupec, said that Judge Kavanaugh "had never heard any allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment" regarding Kozinski until recently."
• Daniel Epps, a Washington Law professor otherwise unconnected with Kavanaugh, said that he has known about the allegations for about a decade so it's impossible for Kavanaugh to not have known until recently. (It's unclear how Epps is in a position to know what Kavanaugh did or didn't know). Various unnamed individuals in various articles attempt to confirm the "everyone knew" argument, but their accounts aren't detailed enough to know how or when, etc.
• On Twitter, another well-known professor, Jonathan Adler, challenged Epps claims regarding whether it was really "well known." https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1018174943639502848. ("I'm curious about this. It seems it was compartmentalized: Widely known in some circles, unknown in others. Some former clerks were genuinely surprised" and, after saying that he (Adler) asked around about Kozinski when he considered clerking for him as a 2nd clerkship, "[w]hen he'd come up people would talk about midnight calls and making clerks carry luggage. Even when he got in trouble for his server, I didn't hear suggestion he'd been inappropriate with female clerks." (To be clear, Adler isn't suggesting Kozinski's behavior wasn't well known in some circles, but suggesting that it wasn't well-known in all circles, his being a perfect anecdote as someone who had specifically asked around prior to deciding whether or not to clerk for Kozinski)
• Leslie Fahrenkopf Foley, who was a summer extern in Kozinski's chambers while Kavanaugh served as a law clerk, said "I worked for Alex Kozinski in the summer of 1992, while Brett Kavanaugh was a law clerk. It was a completely professional environment, and I never saw or experienced any harassment, nor did I ever feel uncomfortable," Fahrenkopf said in a statement released through the White House. "Brett Kavanaugh is, moreover, a consummate gentleman, and I cannot imagine he ever knew about or condoned any workplace misconduct by Judge Kozinski or anyone else."
• Additionally, in response to the allegations that "Kavanaugh must have known" 18 of Kavanaugh's female former clerks sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee attesting to "[their] uniformly positive experiences with the judge as a boss on issues of gender and equality in the workplace" and "several female clerks for Kavanaugh advocated for him in interviews with The Daily Signal."
• Susan Engel, a law clerk for Kozinski in 2000 and 2001, later clerked for the now-deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She worked with Kavanaugh at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis.
  "Brett is a devoted father to two daughters, someone who has mentored and supported the careers of many women lawyers, and someone who has always treated women with respect," Engel said in a statement. "At no time during my clerkship, or in the years since, did I see or hear Judge Kozinski sexually harass anyone. "I was shocked by the allegations that surfaced last year. I would be astonished if Brett Kavanaugh had ever heard anything about this," she wrote.
• Porter Wilkinson, a clerk for Kavanaugh from 2007 to 2008, said she doesn't believe Kavanaugh knew of any allegations against Kozinski. "Judge Kavanaugh knows firsthand from his mother's personal experience as a trailblazer in the legal world the discrimination that women can face in the workplace," Wilkinson said in a statement. "As a former law clerk to Judge Kavanaugh, I knowas evidenced by the letter signed by his law clerksthat he treats everyone with respect. He does not tolerate sexual harassment in any workplace," she wrote.
• Kavanaugh has many written opinions and statements over the years regarding his thoughts on sexual harrassment and workplace misconduct.
• Kavanaugh denies knowing about any such accusation against Kozinski prior to them becoming public. (He repeated these denials during his hearing)

There are no actual facts placing Kavanaugh in any situation where either 1) sexual harrassment by Kozinski occured, or discussion of such harrassment took place such that he "had to have known." In other words, none of the harrassment occurred during Kavanaugh's association with Kozinski, none of Kavanaugh's own clerks knew anything about Kozinski's behavior, and no one has stepped for and asserted that "I had multiple conversations with Kozinski about Kavanaugh's behavior, so of course he had to know."

The only inference regarding "Kavanaugh" must have known is that some people in the legal community knew and they assumed everyone else knew, and they assumed Kavanaugh knew since had a relationship with Kozinski. But other people in the legal community say they have a relationship with either or both Kavanaugh and Kozinski, and even they didn't know about the harrassment until it became public. So, clearly some people knew and some people didn't. Kavanaugh says he didn't. There is no evidence he actually witnessed any of it (and has a stellar record with the women who worked for him regarding how he treats women, generally).

So, how did he lie? And be clear, because the question was regarding "harassment of clerks and habit of publishing inappropriate material"

-- If he lied about knowing about the specific allegations of harassment, then were the other women who also claim that they didn't know about the harassment also lying? (These women either also clerked for Kozinski during the time period or worked with Kavanaugh during the time period).
-- No one is claiming they didn't know about the private computer server storage that contained the pornographic images was the subject of the very public 2008 investigation. (The second half of your question)

The obvious conclusion is some people said they knew (and did nothing about it until it became public) and some people clearly didn't know. Kavanaugh says he didn't know, and there is no actual evidence to indicate that he is lying or misleading about his knowledge prior to it all becoming public.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Alright Booray, how about I give you an equivalent question that you want to give Kavanaugh in order for me to figure out who you really are or if you're believable. Since this is the basis of you wanting to question Kavanaugh.

Are you in favor of delay tactics to get through the November election in hopes that voters will return power to Democrats so they can block any Supreme Court nominations?

---

I don't accept your premise, but no.

1. Anybody who thinks the GOP is not going to seat a justice before January does not know Mitch McConnell.

2. There has been no delay to this point. The opposite is true, the Senate is being asked to consider a nominee with an unusual volume of a paper trail and unusual allegations against him in the usual amount of time.

3. I have said repeatedly with regard to judicial nominees of both parties that they all deserve votes.

BTW, the fact that you would whine about delay of a couple of weeks after the GOP essentially shut down Obama's nominees at all levels for years is the definition of hypocrisy.

---

There's a difference between the party in power excercising it's power to delay and running with unsubstantiated stories which destroy reputations in an attempt for the minority party to delay the vote, right? I didn't agree with the republicans because of the precedent they were setting for the party in power, however the precedent the democrats are setting is terrifying. The republicans didn't destroy the Obama nominee's life in an attempt to delay the vote, the democrats are going scorched earth in an attempt to delay this vote. As an officer of the court yourself, this precedent should be terrifying. I'm the future, why on earth would any qualified candidate want to put themselves through this embarrassment of an approval process?

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

I'm really asking this out of genuine curiosity, what makes her story credible in your opinion? She can't remember when it was, where it was, how she got there or who was there. And the people she has said were there have all denied it. We have no evidence of them know each other and no one has even come forward and said they were seen in the same room together. To me, if someone at least said they were seen at a party together, I would call it a potentially credible story. But we don't even have that. So what exactly makes it credible? Just because she said so? Is that all it takes? When the next democratic nominee is under scrutiny and someone comes forward with a similar story with no facts to corraborate the story, will you still call it credible then? Because I certainly wouldn't.

None of this means we shouldn't at least do our due diligence and investigate it, but i wouldn't call it credible.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

How can you possibly find her testimony credible...but not Kavanaugh's answers?

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

I'm really asking this out of genuine curiosity, what makes her story credible in your opinion? She can't remember when it was, where it was, how she got there or who was there. And the people she has said were there have all denied it. We have no evidence of them know each other and no one has even come forward and said they were seen in the same room together. To me, if someone at least said they were seen at a party together, I would call it a potentially credible story. But we don't even have that. So what exactly makes it credible? Just because she said so? Is that all it takes? When the next democratic nominee is under scrutiny and someone comes forward with a similar story with no facts to corraborate the story, will you still call it credible then? Because I certainly wouldn't.

None of this means we shouldn't at least do our due diligence and investigate it, but i wouldn't call it credible.

---

There is a huge disconnect between feeling like she is credible and factually being credible.

Those of us who have serious concerns about her credibility are talking about whether she is factually credible.

Those of us who say her testimony "was credible" are stating that when they heard her she "sounded" credible (they feel she is credible for reasons outside of what the facts in this case do or don't tell us).

This is why in voir dire, attorneys asks lots of questions of potential jurors about how they feel or think about issues because you don't want someone serving on your jury who already has some inherent belief about certain sets of facts that would preclude listening to the evidence actually presented.

jklburns said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

I'm really asking this out of genuine curiosity, what makes her story credible in your opinion? She can't remember when it was, where it was, how she got there or who was there. And the people she has said were there have all denied it. We have no evidence of them know each other and no one has even come forward and said they were seen in the same room together. To me, if someone at least said they were seen at a party together, I would call it a potentially credible story. But we don't even have that. So what exactly makes it credible? Just because she said so? Is that all it takes? When the next democratic nominee is under scrutiny and someone comes forward with a similar story with no facts to corraborate the story, will you still call it credible then? Because I certainly wouldn't.

None of this means we shouldn't at least do our due diligence and investigate it, but i wouldn't call it credible.

---

There is a huge disconnect between feeling like she is credible and factually being credible.

Those of us who have serious concerns about her credibility are talking about whether she is factually credible.

Those of us who say her testimony "was credible" are stating that when they heard her she "sounded" credible (they feel she is credible for reasons outside of what the facts in this case do or don't tell us).

This is why in voir dire, attorneys asks lots of questions of potential jurors about how they feel or think about issues because you don't want someone serving on your jury who already has some inherent belief about certain sets of facts that would preclude listening to the evidence actually presented.

---

But bubba was calling her story credible even before the testimony. It's one thing to say her story is credible because she legitimately looked hurt in her testimony, it's another thing to say before the testimony that her story is credible. And even after the testimony, how can anyone call the story credible in the absence of any facts whatsoever?

contrario said:

---

jklburns said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

I'm really asking this out of genuine curiosity, what makes her story credible in your opinion? She can't remember when it was, where it was, how she got there or who was there. And the people she has said were there have all denied it. We have no evidence of them know each other and no one has even come forward and said they were seen in the same room together. To me, if someone at least said they were seen at a party together, I would call it a potentially credible story. But we don't even have that. So what exactly makes it credible? Just because she said so? Is that all it takes? When the next democratic nominee is under scrutiny and someone comes forward with a similar story with no facts to corraborate the story, will you still call it credible then? Because I certainly wouldn't.

None of this means we shouldn't at least do our due diligence and investigate it, but i wouldn't call it credible.

---

There is a huge disconnect between feeling like she is credible and factually being credible.

Those of us who have serious concerns about her credibility are talking about whether she is factually credible.

Those of us who say her testimony "was credible" are stating that when they heard her she "sounded" credible (they feel she is credible for reasons outside of what the facts in this case do or don't tell us).

This is why in voir dire, attorneys asks lots of questions of potential jurors about how they feel or think about issues because you don't want someone serving on your jury who already has some inherent belief about certain sets of facts that would preclude listening to the evidence actually presented.

---

But bubba was calling her story credible even before the testimony. It's one thing to say her story is credible because she legitimately looked hurt in her testimony, it's another thing to say before the testimony that her story is credible. And even after the testimony, how can anyone call the story credible in the absence of any facts whatsoever?

---

That's what I'm trying to say -- it's based on feelings, not facts.

It's why trial by public opinion is horrible.

jklburns said:

---

contrario said:

---

jklburns said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

I'm really asking this out of genuine curiosity, what makes her story credible in your opinion? She can't remember when it was, where it was, how she got there or who was there. And the people she has said were there have all denied it. We have no evidence of them know each other and no one has even come forward and said they were seen in the same room together. To me, if someone at least said they were seen at a party together, I would call it a potentially credible story. But we don't even have that. So what exactly makes it credible? Just because she said so? Is that all it takes? When the next democratic nominee is under scrutiny and someone comes forward with a similar story with no facts to corraborate the story, will you still call it credible then? Because I certainly wouldn't.

None of this means we shouldn't at least do our due diligence and investigate it, but i wouldn't call it credible.

---

There is a huge disconnect between feeling like she is credible and factually being credible.

Those of us who have serious concerns about her credibility are talking about whether she is factually credible.

Those of us who say her testimony "was credible" are stating that when they heard her she "sounded" credible (they feel she is credible for reasons outside of what the facts in this case do or don't tell us).

This is why in voir dire, attorneys asks lots of questions of potential jurors about how they feel or think about issues because you don't want someone serving on your jury who already has some inherent belief about certain sets of facts that would preclude listening to the evidence actually presented.

---

But bubba was calling her story credible even before the testimony. It's one thing to say her story is credible because she legitimately looked hurt in her testimony, it's another thing to say before the testimony that her story is credible. And even after the testimony, how can anyone call the story credible in the absence of any facts whatsoever?

---

That's what I'm trying to say -- it's based on feelings, not facts.

It's why trial by public opinion is a horrible.

---

Gotcha. Agreed.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I had opposed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS on ideological grounds but reconciled myself to the fact that he would likely be confirmed.

Then the events of the last two weeks happened, culminating in his angry, partisan rant on Thursday. I would probably still be reconciled to his confirmation had he been honest about the fact that he frequently drank to excess in high school and college, that now that he had his own children he had a greater appreciation of how dangerous his behavior was to himself and, potentially, others, and that he was sincerely sorry if he had ever done ANYTHING under the influence to frighten, harass or hurt anyone--but that he honestly didn't remember doing any such thing.

But that's not what Kavanaugh did. He denied drinking to excess often, didn't answer questions but sarcastically hurled them back at the Democrat questioning him (since no Republicans asked meaningful questions), and behaved as if any questions about his behavior as a student were negated by his steller academic record and hard work.

That Kavanaugh is smart and capable is beyond dispute.

That he is also a partisan bully is now equally beyond dispute.

If the GOP confirms Kavanaugh--and that's what he will be, a judge confirmed by a single party--they are putting a second bully prone to rants and confrontational rudeness toward anyone who has the temerity to quesiton his behavior or positions or the ethics of his past work, a federal judge who essentially swore a loyalty oath to President Trump during his awful rant, in a position of extreme power. For the rest of his life.

That's shameful, and I hope there are serious consequences for it at the polls.

---

You are assuming he frequently drank to excess. You have no proof of this.

You are applying his high school and college years outside of class to his character 36 years later in a negative light...despite evidence throughout his life as being a very middle of the ground, respected and damn good judge.

You think he shouldn't hurl back at Democrats accusing him of rape. If you or a loved one is ever accused of rape then I fully expect you not to be angry about it if you believe it's false.

You've taken all of these things and unfairly determined that he is a partisan bully...despite not realizing that all these things make you a partisan bully.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Then the events of the last two weeks happened, culminating in his angry, partisan rant on Thursday. I would probably still be reconciled to his confirmation had he been honest about the fact that he frequently drank to excess in high school and college, that now that he had his own children he had a greater appreciation of how dangerous his behavior was to himself and, potentially, others, and that he was sincerely sorry if he had ever done ANYTHING under the influence to frighten, harass or hurt anyone--but that he honestly didn't remember doing any such thing.

But that's not what Kavanaugh did. He denied drinking to excess often, didn't answer questions but sarcastically hurled them back at the Democrat questioning him (since no Republicans asked meaningful questions), and behaved as if any questions about his behavior as a student were negated by his steller academic record and hard work.

---

You need to stop reading the talking points.

Judge Kavanaugh: "I drank beer with my friends. Sometimes I had too many beers, sometimes others did. I liked beer, I still like beer, but I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out & I never sexually assaulted anyone."

Edit: Now that you know he did exactly what you say he should have done, are you now "reconciled to his confirmation." Let me guess, no {insert continuing moving goalpost here}.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I had opposed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS on ideological grounds but reconciled myself to the fact that he would likely be confirmed.

Then the events of the last two weeks happened, culminating in his angry, partisan rant on Thursday. I would probably still be reconciled to his confirmation had he been honest about the fact that he frequently drank to excess in high school and college, that now that he had his own children he had a greater appreciation of how dangerous his behavior was to himself and, potentially, others, and that he was sincerely sorry if he had ever done ANYTHING under the influence to frighten, harass or hurt anyone--but that he honestly didn't remember doing any such thing.

But that's not what Kavanaugh did. He denied drinking to excess often, didn't answer questions but sarcastically hurled them back at the Democrat questioning him (since no Republicans asked meaningful questions), and behaved as if any questions about his behavior as a student were negated by his steller academic record and hard work.

That Kavanaugh is smart and capable is beyond dispute.

That he is also a partisan bully is now equally beyond dispute.

If the GOP confirms Kavanaugh--and that's what he will be, a judge confirmed by a single party--they are putting a second bully prone to rants and confrontational rudeness toward anyone who has the temerity to quesiton his behavior or positions or the ethics of his past work, a federal judge who essentially swore a loyalty oath to President Trump during his awful rant, in a position of extreme power. For the rest of his life.

That's shameful, and I hope there are serious consequences for it at the polls.

---

Regardless of whether he is confirmed or not, the antics of the Democrats for the past 2 weeks have set a dangerous precedent. I can see every confirmation process going forward being a single-party confirmation and dragged out as long as possible while unreliable stories are brought up to drag the nominees name in the mud.

It's one thing for the party in power to delay a lame duck president's nominee (which I also disagreed with, but could at least justify) and completely destroying the reputation of a person purely for political reasons. That precedent terrifies me and it should terrify every American. That will have a much greater impact on the election than whether Brett gets confirmed or not. I wish both parties could go down in flames because they are both disasters, but in this particular election, I'm kind of hoping Brett doesn't get confirmed and the Democrats can go down. And they will because most reasonable people in the middle and even some left leaning people can see right through this and it disgusts them.

This is only anecdotal, but I've had so many conversations with people that are middle of the road and don't usually even talk about politics. When they do, they usually don't pick one side consistently. But on this one issue, they consistently side against the democrats. Not because they support Brett, or Trump, in fact most of them can't stand Trump, but they are irate with the way the Democrats have handled this. And if you stepped outside of your Democratic bubble and confirmation bias sources, you would see the same too. We'll find out in just a few weeks how the voters feel about the issue.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I had opposed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS on ideological grounds but reconciled myself to the fact that he would likely be confirmed.

Then the events of the last two weeks happened, culminating in his angry, partisan rant on Thursday. I would probably still be reconciled to his confirmation had he been honest about the fact that he frequently drank to excess in high school and college, that now that he had his own children he had a greater appreciation of how dangerous his behavior was to himself and, potentially, others, and that he was sincerely sorry if he had ever done ANYTHING under the influence to frighten, harass or hurt anyone--but that he honestly didn't remember doing any such thing.

But that's not what Kavanaugh did. He denied drinking to excess often, didn't answer questions but sarcastically hurled them back at the Democrat questioning him (since no Republicans asked meaningful questions), and behaved as if any questions about his behavior as a student were negated by his steller academic record and hard work.

That Kavanaugh is smart and capable is beyond dispute.

That he is also a partisan bully is now equally beyond dispute.

If the GOP confirms Kavanaugh--and that's what he will be, a judge confirmed by a single party--they are putting a second bully prone to rants and confrontational rudeness toward anyone who has the temerity to quesiton his behavior or positions or the ethics of his past work, a federal judge who essentially swore a loyalty oath to President Trump during his awful rant, in a position of extreme power. For the rest of his life.

That's shameful, and I hope there are serious consequences for it at the polls.

---

One things leftists are consistent about is being completely abhorrent of actual facts.

For those that found her testimony credible, what was it about her testimony that you found credible? Was it when this supposedly esteemed academic continually reverted to preschoolish mannerisms and the squeaky, high pitched, babyish voice of a four-year-old? Was it when she was reading her account of the incident and jammed her chin into her neck to assist her in speaking with a croaky voice like she had a softball sized amount of phlegm in her throat? Was it when she pretended to cry but never actually shed any tears? Which part of it exactly?

I'm dying to know.

She doesn't have motive? A lifelong Democrat? Who now has about a million bucks she's received in the past week in several different GoFundMe accounts, whose balances are increasing by the minute?

Yes, no motive indeed.

bubbadog said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

She doesn't have motive? A lifelong Democrat? Who now has about a million bucks she's received in the past week in several different GoFundMe accounts, whose balances are increasing by the minute?

Yes, no motive indeed.

---

Lifelong? She was raised as a Republican. Her parents are still Republicans.

The money? So you're suggesting she made this allegation as a get-rich-quick scheme, anticipating that her friends would start GoFundMe accounts to pay for her legal fees or the costs of moving into a hotel? Get the ****outta here.

---

You get the f*** out of here and while you're at it, try pulling your head out of your ass. We're talking about her political preference over her nearly four decades as an adult here, not what her daddy believed. You think that she hasn't noticed that recent leftist heroes like Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok have been inundated with hundreds of thousands of dollars via GoFundMe accounts setup on their behalf in recent months? You don't think she would take the teensy-weensy logical leap that she would receive the same type of heroic showering of funds? Do you believe her when she said--mind you this is someone with a Ph.D-- that she didn't know how to contact her senator?

Give me a break. This is why it's impossible to have an honest conversation with leftists, because by and large they don't have an honest bone in their body. If someone on my side of the aisle was to do something with potential shadiness, at least I'd be able to admit that I see it as a possibility. I don't think in my entire life I've ever seen a leftist willing to admit that someone on their side could possibly be anything but as pure as the driven snow. That's why I don't normally waste my time here on this board because it's a completely fruitless endeavor to attempt an honest conversation. It's truly incredible.

jklburns said:

---

contrario said:

---

jklburns said:

---

contrario said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Booray said:

---

But if you can't see the potential problems I identified, its willful ignorance.

---

Or we don't accept your premise. Some don't think those are problems

---

That much is clear. Sexual assault or attempted rape? Well, if it happened, it happened 35 years ago. No need to scrutinize someone over that. Let bygones be bygones, especially if a Supreme Court seat is at stake.

---

Or should we expect some corroboration? He denies he was there or that it ever happened. I think the accusation has been scrutinized.

Note I didn't say, as you imply, that sexual assault isn't a problem.

You accept her testimony unquestioningly, especially if it is a Trump supreme court nominee.

I require something besides that, some corroboration. Project Innocence is freeing people who were convicted based on the testimony of sincere people who were mistaken.

---

I will invite you to read what I wrote this morning on the other thread (the main thread about Kavanaugh-Ford).

I've made it pretty clear that I don't regard Ford's testimony as conclusive. It it nonetheless credible.
I'm not going to try to re-summarize the long post I made over there, but you'll have a clearer idea of where I'm coming from if you bother to read it. (Alternatively, if it makes you feel better, you could just keep spouting stuff like I accept her testimony unquestionably because it involves a Trump nominee.)

---

I'm really asking this out of genuine curiosity, what makes her story credible in your opinion? She can't remember when it was, where it was, how she got there or who was there. And the people she has said were there have all denied it. We have no evidence of them know each other and no one has even come forward and said they were seen in the same room together. To me, if someone at least said they were seen at a party together, I would call it a potentially credible story. But we don't even have that. So what exactly makes it credible? Just because she said so? Is that all it takes? When the next democratic nominee is under scrutiny and someone comes forward with a similar story with no facts to corraborate the story, will you still call it credible then? Because I certainly wouldn't.

None of this means we shouldn't at least do our due diligence and investigate it, but i wouldn't call it credible.

---

There is a huge disconnect between feeling like she is credible and factually being credible.

Those of us who have serious concerns about her credibility are talking about whether she is factually credible.

Those of us who say her testimony "was credible" are stating that when they heard her she "sounded" credible (they feel she is credible for reasons outside of what the facts in this case do or don't tell us).

This is why in voir dire, attorneys asks lots of questions of potential jurors about how they feel or think about issues because you don't want someone serving on your jury who already has some inherent belief about certain sets of facts that would preclude listening to the evidence actually presented.

---

But bubba was calling her story credible even before the testimony. It's one thing to say her story is credible because she legitimately looked hurt in her testimony, it's another thing to say before the testimony that her story is credible. And even after the testimony, how can anyone call the story credible in the absence of any facts whatsoever?

---

That's what I'm trying to say -- it's based on feelings, not facts.

It's why trial by public opinion is horrible.

---

Correct - see #10