• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Colonel Angus said:
Any updates on the evidence or support which PROVES Brett Kavanaugh is a serial gang rapist as alleged by many a Tunnels scholar?

Or are we still working through the "feels" stage?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

I am confused. Are you saying there was no evidence, because a first person witness account given under oath is evidence. Or are you saying you just don't believe her?
 
TimmyClutch said:
I am confused. Are you saying there was no evidence, because a first person witness account given under oath is evidence. Or are you saying you just don't believe her?
Click to expand...

Brad doesn't even know what he is saying. He's caught up an stupefying mixture of outrage and idiocy and doesn't know up from down at this point.
 
It’s interesting how for conservatives, a victim or witness is more than enough to justify killing someone but a rape victim testifying under oath is not credible at all.
 
Not sure if it's willful ignorance, gullibility, or the self-proclaimed big brains just being dumb as fence posts.

I'm going with a combination of all of the above:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4952147-180930-Rachel-Mitchell-Memo-Kavanaugh.html

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult
to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the
event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For
the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this
case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is
sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”

• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”

• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school
summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not
explain.

• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the
“summer of 1982.”

• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session
in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the
Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not
turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.

• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain
how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular
year.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.

• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in
2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a
potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.

• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure
of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become
less specific.

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were
married.

• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim
of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.

• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help
corroborate her account.

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

• She does not remember how she got to the party

She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that
house was located with any specificity.

• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her
house.

o Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.

o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country
Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies,
and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.

o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere
that night, either to the party or from the party or both.

o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and
subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she
did not look like she had been attacked.

o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward
to identify him or herself as the driver.

o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming
downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she
did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the
assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was
taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as
having attended—including her lifelong friend.

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party—
Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham).
Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could
not remember his name. No others have come forward.

• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any
memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee,
Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr.
Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was
present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through
counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to
corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.”

o Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl
at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had
suddenly disappeared.
Click to expand...
 
So what is your explanation? That she lied about all of it and put herself in the national spotlight all in hopes of keeping Kavanaugh off the court? She was paid by the Clintons? Or maybe she was a young girl who had a traumatic experience, tried to put it out of her mind and didn't bring it up until she felt compelled to? Doesn't that quote speak more to how difficult it would be to prosecute a rape/sexual assault case 30-40 years later rather than whether or not it happened.

All of this is mute anyways, as he is on the court, never faced prosecution, and an impeachment against him is such a distant possibility. What would be the point of Republicans fighting this confirmation? They already have a super majority on the court, and that isn't changing. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett all were under different circumstances (Scalia died in February and this is January if you want to split hairs). If someone comes forward with assaults allegations about Biden's nominee I am sure they charges will be heard with the respect they are due. So what is the point of fighting this nomination tooth and nail?
 
Because it's a midterm year and their base expects them to fight this nomination tooth and nail. What better way to do it than going all out to fight the nomination of a Black woman to the Supreme Court during Black History Month?
 
Angus' entire point is to pre-justify how the GOP is going to treat whoever Biden nominates. Dems gave Gorsuch and Barret respectful and fair treatment during confirmation, despite the very political nature of both their appointments, but scrutinized Kavanaugh because one credible and two other sexual assault allegations emerged. Kavanaugh's confirmation is all Angus is going to talk about because the GOP plans to destroy who ever Biden nominates, regardless of their record or personal history.
 
Kavanaugh was not on trial, he was being nominated for a lifetime job, the highest in his field. He had everything to gain from lying, his accuser absolutely nothing to gain. It was all up Republican senators to go ahead and confirm him, or pass on him for another conservative justice. In an act of fealty to a lowbrow TV show host, they confirmed him. Angus you are such a gullible lemming. Get your head out of your ass kid
 
Last edited:
what's the o/u on years until we get a TV judge on the Supreme Court
 
TenaciousKory said:
what's the o/u on years until we get a TV judge on the Supreme Court
Click to expand...

We got a TV boss as president. Wasn't there talk that Trump wanted to nominate Judge Jeanne to SCOTUS?
 
PhDeac said:
Because it's a midterm year and their base expects them to fight this nomination tooth and nail. What better way to do it than going all out to fight the nomination of a Black woman to the Supreme Court during Black History Month?
Click to expand...

46 Senate Dems opposed Clarence Thomas' nomination. Was racism to blame for this one as well?
 
Colonel Angus said:
46 Senate Dems opposed Clarence Thomas' nomination. Was racism to blame for this one as well?
Click to expand...

He had been a judge for all of 1 year, he had written about his belief in natural law, the ABA gave him one of the lowest ratings for a sitting judge and that isn't even going in to the Anita Hill allegations, all of which should be reason enough not to confirm him.

Scalia was confirmed 98-0, 5 years earlier. So come on man, do better.
 
46 out of 57 Senate Dems. Democrats could have tanked Thomas, but they didn't.
 
TimmyClutch said:
He had been a judge for all of 1 year, he had written about his belief in natural law, the ABA gave him one of the lowest ratings for a sitting judge and that isn't even going in to the Anita Hill allegations, all of which should be reason enough not to confirm him.

Scalia was confirmed 98-0, 5 years earlier. So come on man, do better.
Click to expand...
Not to mention he married a right wing loon who was basically supporting insurrection.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Not to mention he married a right wing loon who planned an insurrection.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

Some of the ugly dialogue around the Anita Hill hearings was "He's married to a white woman. Why would he harass her?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top