Brett Kavanaugh now under FBI investigation

[101A]

If you think that because Kavanaugh allegedly grew up in an era where partying and the behavior he is accused of is common, ergo, he did it, then I can't help you. But in the law, we don't convict people on such generalities, and thankfully so. Instead we rely on due process and evidence.

that. Toss him in a river. See if he floats.

[cd98]

wtf.

This isn't a criminal court. He's not being arrested. He's not being tried in a court for evidence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a job interview for the highest court in the land. It's a character review.

Why do I have to delineate this incredibly rudimentary thing to you? Do you actually not understand the difference between criminal court and a judicial nomination review?

He's accused of committing a crime. You can't accuse him of that without the implication of what the law requires before considering if the allegation is true or not. Or least you can't do it with any legitimacy.

You can form your own opinions however you want. But if you come with weak arguments like he grew up in a culture of drinking and debauchery, ergo he is guilty of attempted rape and should not be confirmed, then I'm calling out the stupidity of that conclusion based on my structure, which has legitimacy. Notions of due process and rules of evidence have been tried and tested over years and they do much better than mob rule mentality.

[spurraider21]

He's accused of committing a crime. You can't accuse him of that without the implication of what the law requires before considering if the allegation is true or not. Or least you can't do it with any legitimacy.

You can form your own opinions however you want. But if you come with weak arguments like he grew up in a culture of drinking and debauchery, ergo he is guilty of attempted rape and should not be confirmed, then I'm calling out the stupidity of that conclusion based on my structure, which has legitimacy. Notions of due process and rules of evidence have been tried and tested over years and they do much better than mob rule mentality.

someone might fail a character review for a job without being referred for prosecution

see: zeke elliott

[Spurs Homer]

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that two people can read a statute or an opinion and come to two different and somewhat legitimate conclusions. Now, I'm not a cons utional lawyer (though I did get an A in con law), but I have studied opinions. I'm no expert on the Supreme Court, but if you are a textualist, of course it's going to come against rights that are not enumerated in the cons ution. Likewise, if you believe in a living, breathing cons ution, then you will tend to interpret things as rights. Those two views can be opposed. But they also look at precedent, so it's not just what the Cons ution says or doesn't say.

Judges will tell you, and I believe them, that they do not let their personal beliefs into their analysis. I've wrote legal opinions that I disagreed with personally, but I knew that is what the law required. I think that can and does happen all the time on the Supreme Court.

You're a lawyer?
You see nothing wrong with how Kavanaugh's alleged victim is being treated? You keep repeating that the FBI has zero to investigate? Seriously?

Ok- just humor us;

(a) You are the alleged sexual assault victims attorney - the defense is telling you - no witnesses, no fbi investigation, no delay -gotta take the stand in 3 days, the jury has made comments regarding your client being "mixed-up" - and have pretty much stated that the accused suspect is pretty much gonna walk. They refused an investigation and said - "it was too long ago - nothing to find there" - there was another WITNESS - but he told the prosecutor "I don't want to testify under oath" and the prosecutor said "ok-sure"
-- Are you happy with this for your victim/client? -- Are the scales of justice evenly applied here?


(b) You are Kavanaughs attorney - the prosecutor is telling you - "he will walk" - the jury has been holding "war room sessions" all week and coaching him on how to answer questions, the prosecutor has disallowed any independent investigation even though the standard practice has always been to allow an fbi background to be completed or re-opened whenever new allegations surface but they winked at you and said "don't worry - the president believes your client and will back you 100%
-- Are you happy being the attorney in this situation?

A or B seems legally fair to you?

Since you are a lawyer.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's an outsider's view. I've worked with two Federal Judges before. That is not the case in my experience.

My son clerked for a 5th circuit judge. He routinely would assign different clerks to take opposing views on every major decision and then review them and typically go with the most compelling argument.

[cd98]

someone might fail a character review for a job without being referred for prosecution

see: zeke elliott

He was accused of committing a crime. People are asking for the FBI to investigate. The fact that someone is afraid to apply traditional notions of due process and evidence only confirms that they know that the allegation is paper thin. Also, Democrats have said that he should now be investigated and possibly impeached from his seat on the DC court of appeals. So, I think applying the law has plenty of reason.

Zeke lost work because of the collective bargaining agreement. But the case was investigated and the prosecutor determined there was not enough evidence to convict. That said, the Zeke case had more solid evidence than the case against Kavanaugh. It was not question that his girlfriend had been manhandled, it was just whether or not he did it.

[cd98]

You're a lawyer?
You see nothing wrong with how Kavanaugh's alleged victim is being treated? You keep repeating that the FBI has zero to investigate? Seriously?

Ok- just humor us;

(a) You are the alleged sexual assault victims attorney - the defense is telling you - no witnesses, no fbi investigation, no delay -gotta take the stand in 3 days, the jury has made comments regarding your client being "mixed-up" - and have pretty much stated that the accused suspect is pretty much gonna walk. They refused an investigation and said - "it was too long ago - nothing to find there" - there was another WITNESS - but he told the prosecutor "I don't want to testify under oath" and the prosecutor said "ok-sure"
-- Are you happy with this for your victim/client? -- Are the scales of justice evenly applied here?


(b) You are Kavanaughs attorney - the prosecutor is telling you - "he will walk" - the jury has been holding "war room sessions" all week and coaching him on how to answer questions, the prosecutor has disallowed any independent investigation even though the standard practice has always been to allow an fbi background to be completed or re-opened whenever new allegations surface but they winked at you and said "don't worry - the president believes your client and will back you 100%
-- Are you happy being the attorney in this situation?

A or B seems legally fair to you?

Since you are a lawyer.

If I was her attorney (and I'm not a criminal attorney), I would tell her to file a complaint with the Maryland police department. There is no statute of limitations on a rape allegation. I would tell her to have them investigate. Before I went public with the allegation, I would make sure that she could clearly articulate where she was, when it happened, who was there, who's house it was, how she got there, and where she went after. I also wouldn't go to the media and politicize. I would have handled it privately and quietly and if the Maryland police decided there was a case, then it would become public.

But that's not anything close to what happened here because it has been treated like a political hit job. Unfortunately. That's why I tend to think it is a hoax. Answer the questions above, and then I'd see if I change my mind about the allegation.

[cd98]

My son clerked for a 5th circuit judge. He routinely would assign different clerks to take opposing views on every major decision and then review them and typically go with the most compelling argument.

Yes, that's how it works. They don't want to make political decisions, then want to make decisions that are backed by solid legal analysis.

[Spurs Homer]

If I was her attorney (and I'm not a criminal attorney), I would tell her to file a complaint with the Maryland police department. There is no statute of limitations on a rape allegation. I would tell her to have them investigate. Before I went public with the allegation, I would make sure that she could clearly articulate where she was, when it happened, who was there, who's house it was, how she got there, and where she went after. I also wouldn't go to the media and politicize. I would have handled it privately and quietly and if the Maryland police decided there was a case, then it would become public.

But that's not anything close to what happened here because it has been treated like a political hit job. Unfortunately. That's why I tend to think it is a hoax. Answer the questions above, and then I'd see if I changed my mind.

So A or B - is the most advantageous?

Easy question.

[Pavlov]

"Random woman exposes self to doxxing, death threats and character assassination to pwn Trump."

[cd98]

So A or B - is the most advantageous?

Easy question.

I would not treat the case like a political hit job, so I wouldn't find myself in that situation. Ford hired an attorney and took a lie detector test in the summer. There was plenty of time to launch an investigation with the Maryland police back then. Unfortunately, all her actions to this point reek of political activism.

[Spurs Homer]

I would not treat the case like a political hit job, so I wouldn't find myself in that situation. Ford hired an attorney and took a lie detector test in the summer. There was plenty of time to launch an investigation with the Maryland police back then. Unfortunately, all her actions to this point reek of political activism.

Irrelevant.

A or B?

[cd98]

Irrelevant.

A or B?

It's entirely relevant. The A scenario came about because the attorney was less interested in getting to the truth and more interested in stopping the confirmation. It's not like Ford has three days to figure out where she was, who's house it was, who was there, how she got there, and where she went after. She's had since she was 15 to know that information and she's had since at least before July to figure that stuff out. She should be able to tell her story by now. If she can't, it's because it's just a story.

[Spurs Homer]

It's entirely relevant. The A scenario came about because the attorney was less interested in getting to the truth and more interested in stopping the confirmation. It's not like Ford has three days to figure out where she was, who's house it was, who was there, how she got there, and where she went after. She's had since she was 15 to know that information and she's had since at least before July to figure that stuff out. She should be able to tell her story by now. If she can't, it's because it's just a story.

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

[101A]

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

I am not entirely sure that even if he did what has been alleged, and it was proven in err. '82 or '83 or whenever, that it would have been a "crime". Not saying he did it, just saying, I'm not sure that what is alleged would have been "criminal".

[spurraider21]

My son clerked for a 5th circuit judge. He routinely would assign different clerks to take opposing views on every major decision and then review them and typically go with the most compelling argument.

some judges to that. they all should. most dont.

for instance, every single clerk clarence thomas has ever hired had previously clerked for a republican-appointed appellate judge. every single one. how can you trust them to give a convincing brief supporting the "other side?" you can't. justice breyer notably hires close to a 50/50 split. and he's a liberal justice who tends to weigh pro-law enforcement and side with the conservative wing on those issues, so it shows.

[101A]

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

Also, include Feinstein when you gripe about the need to rush now. Didn't have to be this way. But since the Republicans have made it clear from the beginning that they wanted this done by 10/1 - not arbitrary; it's when the sc goes in session, there is now a need to "rush". Also, if there are any corroborators out there willing to come forward, I'm pretty sure they can do so - at any time. What, exactly, should be investigated? Where should they start? There is no date, or location to search. No witness except here remembers anything about this (2 boys in the room deny- she admittedly didn't tell anyone else) - what i there to investigate? Going to waterboard Mark Judge?

[cd98]

Your client is waiting. Sham trial in a few days. We are here now. Defend her.

The rest is just an attempt to play politics - same as you are accusing the alleged victim. There is no hurry except in the GOP's mind. What is the real and most important issue. Justice and truth under the legal system - or a false/arbitrary deadline because of Red vs. Blue?

This guy is going to be the top of the law of the land and there is no time to really focus on truth and justice? Really?
What kind of a country are we living in? The guy being rushed to become one of only 9 people out of 320 million to sit on this prestigious court- and he is credibly accused of a serious crime (attempted rape) of which many 17 year olds do prison time - and he has no time for clearing his good name?

The GOP and its base would rather confirm a possible criminal - than actually vet him properly and make sure that he is innocent? The GOP hid 93% of his public records, rushed this sham hearing and its supporters are just waving the Red flag to get a win?

You are a man of the law?

Ha. If my client didn't have her story straight. I would not have her testify. I would withdraw her from the political process. I would go and file a complaint with the local authorities in Maryland and I would ignore the entire Supreme Court confirmation. Who cares if he's confirmed? If she has a legitimate case, he'll be off the court in a year.

But the situation is a result of bad lawyering and great political operation.

The biggest hit to Ford's thin story is the fact that it's caked in political operation. I think she's lying merely because she is treating this like it's a political card game. If I want my client to be believable, I remove her from the political environment and move forward with my case in Maryland.

[koriwhat]

Yeah, a doctor at a respected university, has worked at Stanford University, with multiple publications in her field. WHAT A CRAZY PERSON.

What the do you signifies anything like "well she's a nut"? What doctor from Stanford doesn't meet the universal criteria for sanity of calf tats?

i stopped insulting you yrs ago because i didn't really dislike you and realized how dumb i was being but here you are bucking up with insults. hmm...

she's crazy because of her political ideology. doesn't mean she wasn't able to graduate college, get a high up job at a uni, nor get published multiple times.

she's crazy just like your ex is. she was sane enough to breathe air but not sane enough to stay off ST.

[Spurs Homer]

Also, include Feinstein when you gripe about the need to rush now. Didn't have to be this way. But since the Republicans have made it clear from the beginning that they wanted this done by 10/1 - not arbitrary; it's when the sc goes in session, there is now a need to "rush". Also, if there are any corroborators out there willing to come forward, I'm pretty sure they can do so - at any time. What, exactly, should be investigated? Where should they start? There is no date, or location to search. No witness except here remembers anything about this (2 boys in the room deny- she admittedly didn't tell anyone else) - what i there to investigate? Going to waterboard Mark Judge?

False. The hearing started with a rush from the GOP. Witholding hundreds of thousands of do ents and then dumping 140,000 do ents on the Dems laps - 15 hours before the start of the hearing. Merrick Garland waited for a year - and never got a hearing - so all of this whining is just irrelevant.

NOW.

Allegations have surfaced and must be dealt with. This guy wants to serve on the highest court in the land - and his very first crisis of law - is right now. He has no time to clear his name with honor?

[boutons_deux]

After the Kavanaugh Allegations, Republicans Offer a Shocking Defense: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Big Deal

a startling number of conservative figures have reacted as if they believe Ford,

and have thus ended up in the peculiar position of

defending the right of a Supreme Court Justice to have previously attempted to commit rape—

a stance that at once faithfully corresponds to and defiantly refutes the current Zeitgeist.

These defenders think that the seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh could easily, as Ford alleges, have gotten wasted at a party, pushed a younger girl into a bedroom, pinned her on a bed, and tried to pull off her clothes while covering her mouth to keep her from screaming.

They think this, they say, because they know that plenty of men and boys do things like this.

On these points, they are in perfect agreement with the women who have defined the #MeToo movement.

And yet their conclusion is so diametrically opposed to the moral lessons of the past year that it seems almost deliberately petulant.

We now mostly accept that lots of men have committed sexual assault, but one part of the country is saying, “Yes, this is precisely the problem,” and the other part is saying,

“Yes, that is why it would obviously be a non-issue to have one of these men on the Supreme Court.”

“I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.”

“If stupid, bad, or drunken behavior as a minor back in high school were the standard, every male politician in Washington, DC would fail.”

"If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.”

“What about the deeper, moral, cultural, like, the ethical question here?

Let’s say he did this exactly as she said.

Should the fact that a seventeen-year-old presumably very drunk kid did this—should this be disqualifying?”

“How much in society should any of us be held liable today when we lived a good life, an upstanding life by all accounts, and then something that maybe is an arguable issue took place in high school?

Should that deny us chances later in life?”

it has traditionally been accepted for men to sexually assault women, particularly at parties, particularly when they’re young.

Kavanaugh’s defenders are putting plainly

a previously euphemized message:

white and wealthy teen-age boys have the right to engage in criminal sexual cruelty

as long as they later get a good job, start a family, and “settle down.”

Severino said that Ford’s version of events could be describing anything from “boorishness to rough horseplay.”

(In other words, it wasn’t attempted rape; it was a word that people use to cover up attempted rape.)

It would appear that Severino, and those who have made similar comments,

have no idea—and not much interest in understanding—what being on the other end of this sort of “horseplay” feels like.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...Q4MTc0NTA1MgS2

So there's a contingent of K supporters who believe Ford but say what K did 30 years ago, white boys will be white boys, was not big deal

(he's one of our rat ing, misogynist tribe, so he gets a huge pass).

If he were black and/or Dem, I'm sure Repugs would have voted him down.

[CosmicCowboy]

Crying about the do ents?

You mean the 49 democrats that had already decided they were going to oppose him no matter what?

[101A]

After the Kavanaugh Allegations, Republicans Offer a Shocking Defense: Sexual Assault Isn’t a Big Deal

a startling number of conservative figures have reacted as if they believe Ford,

and have thus ended up in the peculiar position of

defending the right of a Supreme Court Justice to have previously attempted to commit rape—

a stance that at once faithfully corresponds to and defiantly refutes the current Zeitgeist.

These defenders think that the seventeen-year-old Kavanaugh could easily, as Ford alleges, have gotten wasted at a party, pushed a younger girl into a bedroom, pinned her on a bed, and tried to pull off her clothes while covering her mouth to keep her from screaming.

They think this, they say, because they know that plenty of men and boys do things like this.

On these points, they are in perfect agreement with the women who have defined the #MeToo movement.

And yet their conclusion is so diametrically opposed to the moral lessons of the past year that it seems almost deliberately petulant.

We now mostly accept that lots of men have committed sexual assault, but one part of the country is saying, “Yes, this is precisely the problem,” and the other part is saying,

“Yes, that is why it would obviously be a non-issue to have one of these men on the Supreme Court.”

“I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.”

“If stupid, bad, or drunken behavior as a minor back in high school were the standard, every male politician in Washington, DC would fail.”

"If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.”

“What about the deeper, moral, cultural, like, the ethical question here?

Let’s say he did this exactly as she said.

Should the fact that a seventeen-year-old presumably very drunk kid did this—should this be disqualifying?”

“How much in society should any of us be held liable today when we lived a good life, an upstanding life by all accounts, and then something that maybe is an arguable issue took place in high school?

Should that deny us chances later in life?”

it has traditionally been accepted for men to sexually assault women, particularly at parties, particularly when they’re young.

Kavanaugh’s defenders are putting plainly

a previously euphemized message:

white and wealthy teen-age boys have the right to engage in criminal sexual cruelty

as long as they later get a good job, start a family, and “settle down.”

Severino said that Ford’s version of events could be describing anything from “boorishness to rough horseplay.”

(In other words, it wasn’t attempted rape; it was a word that people use to cover up attempted rape.)

It would appear that Severino, and those who have made similar comments,

have no idea—and not much interest in understanding—what being on the other end of this sort of “horseplay” feels like.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...Q4MTc0NTA1MgS2

So there's a contingent of K supporters who believe Ford but say what K did 30 years ago, white boys will be white boys, was not big deal

(he's one of our rat ing, misogynist tribe, so he gets a huge pass).

If he were black and/or Dem, I'm sure Repugs would have voted him down.

I would like to see at least a partial list of the "startling number of convervatives". Severino? Whose that? The baseball player?

[Spurs Homer]

I am not entirely sure that even if he did what has been alleged, and it was proven in err. '82 or '83 or whenever, that it would have been a "crime". Not saying he did it, just saying, I'm not sure that what is alleged would have been "criminal".

Many 17 year olds in this country (usually black and brown) go to prison for attempted rape. He is alleged to have held her down, ripped at her clothes, covered her mouth when she tried to call for help and his accomplice turned the music loud to avoid being heard while they attempted to rape her.

But you want a W for the Red team, amirite?

[Spurs Homer]

Crying about the do ents?

You mean the 49 democrats that had already decided they were going to oppose him no matter what?

Tell that to Merrick Garland.