They did not fail to investigate any witness. All of the witnesses claimed by the accusers to actually be there, as in, the real witnesses who can give us any actual facts about the incident, were offered an interview and only one declined.
As we've discussed before, the allegation by Dr. Ford isn't the only thing worthy of investigation, and that's not just because of the Ramirez allegation. Kavanaugh's false statements under oath also warranted investigation, yet the FBI failed to address them.
Lying under oath is just as much of a crime as assault.
It's really not worthy of investigation, beyond strictly partisan desires. Perjury isn't what the left seems to think it is, and it's clearly just a last ditch, desperate attempt to demonize a person who isn't guilty of all the charges they laid at his feet in front of the world.
I think an actual perjury charge would be more likely against Ford, who claimed a polygraph as evidence for her testimony, testified she never aided anyone else in a polygraph, and was later contradicted by her boyfriend. That's lying about direct evidence supporting your case, so it's much more likely to reach the level of a matierial matter regarding the case. But then, you have to prove an intentional lie.
I imagine they won't look into that either, but you don't see me complaining that the FBI isn't a tool for political hit jobs.
The reason we are talking about our electoral system is because it relates to this sinking feeling among many that this current system is unsustainable. LA County alone has a bigger population than over a dozen states that receive two Senators. As I've demonstrated on multiple occasions, even the House is not weighed correctly. Even when Democrats hold the White House, they are denied even an opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, any one of which has GENERATIONAL effects. There is no way this is going to continue to work in perpetuity. The governmental system we have set up has run it's course, and it's starting to fail. This is not working. Anyone can see that.
It's really not worthy of investigation, beyond strictly partisan desires. Perjury isn't what the left seems to think it is, and it's clearly just a last ditch, desperate attempt to demonize a person who isn't guilty of all the charges they laid at his feet in front of the world.
I think an actual perjury charge would be more likely against Ford, who claimed a polygraph as evidence for her testimony, testified she never aided anyone else in a polygraph, and was later contradicted by her boyfriend. That's lying about direct evidence supporting your case, so it's much more likely to reach the level of a matierial matter regarding the case. But then, you have to prove an intentional lie.
Not her boyfriend, but the boyfriend of another woman who vehemently denies that she was given any help on a polygraph. Of course - you omitted that significant contextual detail. And since we HAVE to presume innocence, according to conservatives, your point is moot.
Also. Ironic - given president Clinton. Apparently perjury is significant enough in the eyes of the right to try to remove a sitting president from office*
Kavanaugh lied about his drinking in college and high school. How can anyone trust him on the court. He was even asked during his hearing about "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus".
If we can't trust him to tell the truth about his drinking, under oath, how can we trust him in anything?
The reason we are talking about our electoral system is because it relates to this sinking feeling among many that this current system is unsustainable. LA County alone has a bigger population than over a dozen states that receive two Senators.
A perfect example of why the electoral system gives better representation to different groups.
Those twelve states could and do have entirely different lives and needs then LA County. LA County and those twelve states could even have mutually exclusive interests at times. LA County could rule over them forever and just vote against them time and again with nothing they could do about it. Oppress them, literally.
The electoral college prevents that sort of thing by ensuring candidates get the majority of votes, in the majority of locations, rather than one area and subculture being the seat of power. People have to represent most people across the country, not LA County.
The Republicans represented more people across a far wider portion of the country. Maybe California should secede if it wants all the power.
It's really not worthy of investigation, beyond strictly partisan desires. Perjury isn't what the left seems to think it is, and it's clearly just a last ditch, desperate attempt to demonize a person who isn't guilty of all the charges they laid at his feet in front of the world.
I think an actual perjury charge would be more likely against Ford, who claimed a polygraph as evidence for her testimony, testified she never aided anyone else in a polygraph, and was later contradicted by her boyfriend. That's lying about direct evidence supporting your case, so it's much more likely to reach the level of a matierial matter regarding the case. But then, you have to prove an intentional lie.
Not her boyfriend, but the boyfriend of another woman who vehemently denies that she was given any help on a polygraph. Of course - you omitted that significant contextual detail. And since we HAVE to presume innocence, according to conservatives, your point is moot.
Also. Ironic - given president Clinton. Apparently perjury is significant enough in the eyes of the right to try to remove a sitting president from office*
*(When that president isnt a conservative)
No, her boyfriend. Not the boyfriend of another. Fox News and The New York Times agree on this.
Thanks for pointing that out. Must've misread an article (made it sound like it was McLean's boyfriend, not Ford's).
Either way, I'd be *totally* fine with an investigation to see if she perjured herself, being interested in the truth. Of course, that would require following up on the dozens of classmates that contend that Kavanaugh perjured himself in saying he never drank to excess. The GOP doesnt want that though, so they narrowed the investigation. We end up at the same point.
Thanks for pointing that out. Must've misread an article (made it sound like it was McLean's boyfriend, not Ford's.
Either way, I'd be *totally* fine with an investigation to see if she perjured herself, being interested in the truth. Unlike congressional republicans and the White House, who only wanted it to validate their opinion of Kavanaugh.
The next Supreme Court justice of the United States of American will be Kavanaugh, a highly partisan, far-right, multiple-time perjurer and likely rapist who has no control of his emotions and whose history during the Bush administration was inexplicably classified right before he was nominated.
There are so many other equally far-right candidates that the Trump administration could have chosen. But they chose him. In spite of all the warnings about his record as a judge, his personal history, and his honesty.
In spite of massive protests. In spite of the recommendations against his nomination by the American Bar Association (which withdrew its support after his hearing), former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and a letter from 2400 law professors. In spite of Kavanaugh's own high school friends--who, because of a deliberately rushed and constrained investigation, were never even asked to testify under oath--saying that he was lying during his hearing. In spite of the obvious contradictions between Kavanaugh's testimony and his own yearbook.
Susan Collins said that Dr. Ford's testimony didn't live up to the "more likely than not" standard. That is deemed good enough for a lifetime appointment to the most powerful seat in the judicial branch. She didn't even address the numerous other complaints about Kavanaugh's fitness to be a judge.
"The chance of Kavanaugh being a rapist is below 50%."
That's how low the GOP's expectations are for the Supreme Court. They don't even address the perjury problem or Kavanaugh's mysteriously classified professional history. As long as they can say Kavanaugh is probably not a rapist, that's good enough for them.
I never thought the situation with Kavanaugh would get so dark. I never thought I'd be faced with the prospect of a Supreme Court justice who committed perjury.
I've gone over everything over and over. There's only one thing I don't get. One thing I simply can't understand no matter how hard I try.
The Trump administration already found a candidate with no sexual assault or perjury allegations--whether true or false. That candidate was Neil Gorsuch. The Democrats didn't fabricate any allegations against him. That proves that there are qualified people for the Supreme Court that all Americans can agree are (if nothing else) not criminals.
They did not fail to investigate any witness. All of the witnesses claimed by the accusers to actually be there, as in, the real witnesses who can give us any actual facts about the incident, were offered an interview and only one declined.
As we've discussed before, the allegation by Dr. Ford isn't the only thing worthy of investigation, and that's not just because of the Ramirez allegation. Kavanaugh's false statements under oath also warranted investigation, yet the FBI failed to address them.
Lying under oath is just as much of a crime as assault.
It's really not worthy of investigation, beyond strictly partisan desires. Perjury isn't what the left seems to think it is, and it's clearly just a last ditch, desperate attempt to demonize a person who isn't guilty of all the charges they laid at his feet in front of the world.
I think an actual perjury charge would be more likely against Ford, who claimed a polygraph as evidence for her testimony, testified she never aided anyone else in a polygraph, and was later contradicted by her boyfriend. That's lying about direct evidence supporting your case, so it's much more likely to reach the level of a matierial matter regarding the case. But then, you have to prove an intentional lie.
I imagine they won't look into that either, but you don't see me complaining that the FBI isn't a tool for political hit jobs.
The reason we are talking about our electoral system is because it relates to this sinking feeling among many that this current system is unsustainable. LA County alone has a bigger population than over a dozen states that receive two Senators.
A perfect example of why the electoral system gives better representation to different groups.
Those twelve states could and do have entirely different lives and needs then LA County. LA County and those twelve states could even have mutually exclusive interests at times. LA County could rule over them forever and just vote against them time and again with nothing they could do about it. Oppress them, literally.
The electoral college prevents that sort of thing by ensuring candidates get the majority of votes, in the majority of locations, rather than one area and subculture being the seat of power. People have to represent most people across the country, not LA County.
The Republicans represented more people across a far wider portion of the country. Maybe California should secede if it wants all the power.
People move to LA county because it's a better place to live with more opportunity than Empty Field, Nebraska.
Why, again, does should an empty field get more power than actual living breathing people? Especially when the Republicans, climate change deniers, don't even have that empty field's interests at heart.
People's votes need to count more than than "locations". Rigged.
Has Kavanaugh been convicted of perjury? No? Then he is innocent of that charge. Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing. O. J. Simpson is a murderer...but not in the eyes of the law, which are the only eyes which matter.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
Has Kavanaugh been convicted of perjury? No? Then he is innocent of that charge. Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing. O. J. Simpson is a murderer...but not in the eyes of the law, which are the only eyes which matter.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
So you are saying it's okay to ignore laws if you can get away with it. That's Trump's life story right there. And it's that attitude that has turning the US into a banana republic. Laws are for thee, not me.
Russian state media — and Kremlin-backed trolls — are helping to push Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination the U.S. Supreme Court as part of a broader effort to undermine American democracy.
So you are saying it's okay to ignore laws if you can get away with it. That's Trump's life story right there. And it's that attitude that has turning the US into a banana republic. Laws are for thee, not me.
This is NOT what I said, and you know it. What I said was "innocent until proven guilty" IS our system of laws and justice. Sometimes innocent people are put into prison and sometimes guilty people go free--nothing is perfect.
I would not have nominated Kavanaugh but then I am smarter than Trump is and look at the broader picture. At this point, though, he is going to ascend to the Court and there is nothing any of us can do except learn how to deal with it, vote your conscience in November, and move forward.
Really? Another "omg the russians are behind it all" story? No, they aren't.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
This is, of course, hideously incorrect. It wasnt against the constitution to hold slaves. It took the court of public opinion to realize maybe (Just MAYBE) we shouldnt enslave someone. Legally speaking, women were not allowed to vote until the twentieth century. We had to break the system to fix that, too.
Society, by necessity, advances faster than the system of law can accommodate. Hiding behind it to protect elites is anathemtic to that advancement.
Has Kavanaugh been convicted of perjury? No? Then he is innocent of that charge. Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing. O. J. Simpson is a murderer...but not in the eyes of the law, which are the only eyes which matter.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
So you are saying it's okay to ignore laws if you can get away with it.
Rule 1 on page 1 is very clear on this: misrepresenting other forumites' views or motives is not acceptable.
Ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite is against the rules.
I would not have nominated Kavanaugh but then I am smarter than Trump is and look at the broader picture. At this point, though, he is going to ascend to the Court and there is nothing any of us can do except learn how to deal with it, vote your conscience in November, and move forward.
Also - you're wrong here too.
Voting is absolutely our number one way to deal with something else. Activism works as well. Attempting to lend our voices in an attempt to galvanize nor only ourselves but others is equally as important, as those factors contribute to turn out in voting.
Frankly, I'm a bit sick of conservative and libertarian people telling me (and others like me) to stop complaining and "just accept it". I *dont* have to be silent. Just accepting it makes it easier for this to happen again in the future.
Has Kavanaugh been convicted of perjury? No? Then he is innocent of that charge. Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing. O. J. Simpson is a murderer...but not in the eyes of the law, which are the only eyes which matter.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
So you are saying it's okay to ignore laws if you can get away with it.
Rule 1 on page 1 is very clear on this: misrepresenting other forumites' views or motives is not acceptable.
Ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite is against the rules.
Understood. I hope it's clear I did not do that.
Here's what he said - "Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing"
Even if true. To me that means "it's okay to break the law" because he claimed he can perjure himself and get away with it (it means nothing). That's not misrepresenting his post? Maybe I misunderstood but his post seems clear - court of opinion means nothing even if he did break the law, right?
His angry all caps response is misrepresenting my post by ascribing sinister views to it.
@smeagolheart: If you have any complaints regarding breaches of the Site Rules, discuss this via PM with a moderator or in a report. These matters are not open for public discussion or debate. There will be no further posts in this thread discussing the above posts between @Mathsorcerer and @smeagolheart in terms of whether one or the other breaks the Site Rules.
@semiticgod Once again you publicly call out people for breaking the rules and then say it's against the rules to do this. Can you not see the issue there?
@FinneousPJ: Whether a given poster actually received a warning for breaking the Site Rules is confidential; we don't disclose that process. But the Site Rules do need to be stated as a reminder every now and then.
The moderating team periodically posts reminders about the Site Rules, both as a response to rulebreaking behavior and non-rulebreaking conversations which could lead to rulebreaking behavior. Thus, quoting another poster and bringing up the Site Rules doesn't necessarily mean that that poster has broken the Site Rules. Sometimes we post the reminders even when no rules have been broken (they're also a preventive measure).
I think it's important to clarify these things, but the Site Rules state that moderator policy is not up for public discussion. If you have any other questions, please contact a moderator via PM; not in this thread.
Has Kavanaugh been convicted of perjury? No? Then he is innocent of that charge. Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing. O. J. Simpson is a murderer...but not in the eyes of the law, which are the only eyes which matter.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
So in a Democracy, you are saying Public opinion is worthless?
Once again, this was not a criminal investigation, it was a job interview. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
What does apply is, is there evidence to conduct an investigation that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearing?
If the answer is yes, and the people who can bring an investigation forward refuse to do so, one should be able to question why.
Why is the American political structure failing?
This should be a main issue come midterms, where public opinion does matter.
The fact that they stuck with Kavanaugh when they could have had anyone else says two things: 1.) He has made a promise to Trump in regards to Executive Power. He has stacked the court with his personal judge. 2.) It's about putting women "back in their place". How do you imagine Kavanaugh is going to rule on ANY issue regarding women's rights, not even limited to abortion?? I put the chances of Kavanaugh making vindictive "revenge" rulings at nearly 100%. How do I know?? Because he told me so under Senate questioning. He didn't mean to reveal himself, but blurted it out in anger.
@jjstraka34: Can we have a source for the "revenge" thing?
Yeah, he literally said "what goes around comes around" when talking about being attacked by the left in his statement. How else am I supposed to interpret it?? Even if he DIDN'T mean it that way, it is an insane thing for a Supreme Court nominee to say. Make of it whatever you like:
Even if it wasn't an implied threat, it sure as hell can be interpreted as one. Given his overall demeanor in that hearing, the context to me is pretty clear. For the record, I have no idea what he is referring to in regards to the "political environment in the early 2000s". I've been operating under the assumption he was so angry he stated a wrong date.
In summary, it's fairly clear that Kavanaugh himself and those who support him view him as some sort of karmic hand of justice against the left. I didn't need him to tell me from his own mouth to know that, but it's mighty helpful to hear it from the horse's mouth. Keep in mind this was at the tail-end of a diatribe in which he claimed that "the Clintons" were seeking to destroy him.
The fact that they stuck with Kavanaugh when they could have had anyone else says two things: 1.) He has made a promise to Trump in regards to Executive Power. He has stacked the court with his personal judge. 2.) It's about putting women "back in their place". How do you imagine Kavanaugh is going to rule on ANY issue regarding women's rights, not even limited to abortion?? I put the chances of Kavanaugh making vindictive "revenge" rulings at nearly 100%. How do I know?? Because he told me so under Senate questioning. He didn't mean to reveal himself, but blurted it out in anger.
He said the rape allegations were "revenge of the Clintons". It is believed he feels a need for revenge on the imagined revenge. Also he said "what goes around comes around".
Attack on women? Yep it can be perceived that way. GOP Senate candidate Kevin Cramer: "I told Trump to avoid 'affirmative action pick' for the Supreme Court". Mission accomplished that pick became Kavanaugh.
Comments
I think an actual perjury charge would be more likely against Ford, who claimed a polygraph as evidence for her testimony, testified she never aided anyone else in a polygraph, and was later contradicted by her boyfriend. That's lying about direct evidence supporting your case, so it's much more likely to reach the level of a matierial matter regarding the case. But then, you have to prove an intentional lie.
I imagine they won't look into that either, but you don't see me complaining that the FBI isn't a tool for political hit jobs.
Also. Ironic - given president Clinton. Apparently perjury is significant enough in the eyes of the right to try to remove a sitting president from office*
*(When that president isnt a conservative)
If we can't trust him to tell the truth about his drinking, under oath, how can we trust him in anything?
Those twelve states could and do have entirely different lives and needs then LA County. LA County and those twelve states could even have mutually exclusive interests at times. LA County could rule over them forever and just vote against them time and again with nothing they could do about it. Oppress them, literally.
The electoral college prevents that sort of thing by ensuring candidates get the majority of votes, in the majority of locations, rather than one area and subculture being the seat of power. People have to represent most people across the country, not LA County.
The Republicans represented more people across a far wider portion of the country. Maybe California should secede if it wants all the power.
Republican gerrymandering wall is starting to crumble
https://thinkprogress.org/the-gops-wall-of-gerrymandering-is-starting-to-crumble-1e449988f6a6/
Analysis: Partisan gerrymandering has benefited Republicans more than Democrats
https://www.businessinsider.com/partisan-gerrymandering-has-benefited-republicans-more-than-democrats-2017-6
Unless they are wrong and retracted it later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Thanks for pointing that out. Must've misread an article (made it sound like it was McLean's boyfriend, not Ford's).
Either way, I'd be *totally* fine with an investigation to see if she perjured herself, being interested in the truth. Of course, that would require following up on the dozens of classmates that contend that Kavanaugh perjured himself in saying he never drank to excess. The GOP doesnt want that though, so they narrowed the investigation. We end up at the same point.
The next Supreme Court justice of the United States of American will be Kavanaugh, a highly partisan, far-right, multiple-time perjurer and likely rapist who has no control of his emotions and whose history during the Bush administration was inexplicably classified right before he was nominated.
There are so many other equally far-right candidates that the Trump administration could have chosen. But they chose him. In spite of all the warnings about his record as a judge, his personal history, and his honesty.
In spite of massive protests. In spite of the recommendations against his nomination by the American Bar Association (which withdrew its support after his hearing), former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and a letter from 2400 law professors. In spite of Kavanaugh's own high school friends--who, because of a deliberately rushed and constrained investigation, were never even asked to testify under oath--saying that he was lying during his hearing. In spite of the obvious contradictions between Kavanaugh's testimony and his own yearbook.
Susan Collins said that Dr. Ford's testimony didn't live up to the "more likely than not" standard. That is deemed good enough for a lifetime appointment to the most powerful seat in the judicial branch. She didn't even address the numerous other complaints about Kavanaugh's fitness to be a judge.
"The chance of Kavanaugh being a rapist is below 50%."
That's how low the GOP's expectations are for the Supreme Court. They don't even address the perjury problem or Kavanaugh's mysteriously classified professional history. As long as they can say Kavanaugh is probably not a rapist, that's good enough for them.
I never thought the situation with Kavanaugh would get so dark. I never thought I'd be faced with the prospect of a Supreme Court justice who committed perjury.
I've gone over everything over and over. There's only one thing I don't get. One thing I simply can't understand no matter how hard I try.
The Trump administration already found a candidate with no sexual assault or perjury allegations--whether true or false. That candidate was Neil Gorsuch. The Democrats didn't fabricate any allegations against him. That proves that there are qualified people for the Supreme Court that all Americans can agree are (if nothing else) not criminals.
Why couldn't you just pick another Neil Gorsuch?
Why, again, does should an empty field get more power than actual living breathing people? Especially when the Republicans, climate change deniers, don't even have that empty field's interests at heart.
People's votes need to count more than than "locations". Rigged.
The Court of Public Opinion is worthless and should be ignored.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/russian-trolls-pushing-kavanaugh-know-hell-help-tear-america-apart/
Well done Ivan and Olga.
I would not have nominated Kavanaugh but then I am smarter than Trump is and look at the broader picture. At this point, though, he is going to ascend to the Court and there is nothing any of us can do except learn how to deal with it, vote your conscience in November, and move forward.
Really? Another "omg the russians are behind it all" story? No, they aren't.
Society, by necessity, advances faster than the system of law can accommodate. Hiding behind it to protect elites is anathemtic to that advancement.
Voting is absolutely our number one way to deal with something else. Activism works as well. Attempting to lend our voices in an attempt to galvanize nor only ourselves but others is equally as important, as those factors contribute to turn out in voting.
Frankly, I'm a bit sick of conservative and libertarian people telling me (and others like me) to stop complaining and "just accept it". I *dont* have to be silent. Just accepting it makes it easier for this to happen again in the future.
Here's what he said - "Calling him a perjurer, even if true, means nothing"
Even if true. To me that means "it's okay to break the law" because he claimed he can perjure himself and get away with it (it means nothing). That's not misrepresenting his post? Maybe I misunderstood but his post seems clear - court of opinion means nothing even if he did break the law, right?
His angry all caps response is misrepresenting my post by ascribing sinister views to it.
The moderating team periodically posts reminders about the Site Rules, both as a response to rulebreaking behavior and non-rulebreaking conversations which could lead to rulebreaking behavior. Thus, quoting another poster and bringing up the Site Rules doesn't necessarily mean that that poster has broken the Site Rules. Sometimes we post the reminders even when no rules have been broken (they're also a preventive measure).
I think it's important to clarify these things, but the Site Rules state that moderator policy is not up for public discussion. If you have any other questions, please contact a moderator via PM; not in this thread.
Once again, this was not a criminal investigation, it was a job interview. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply.
What does apply is, is there evidence to conduct an investigation that Kavanaugh committed perjury during his confirmation hearing?
If the answer is yes, and the people who can bring an investigation forward refuse to do so, one should be able to question why.
Why is the American political structure failing?
This should be a main issue come midterms, where public opinion does matter.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/oct/04/context-brett-kavanaugh-and-what-goes-around-comes/
Even if it wasn't an implied threat, it sure as hell can be interpreted as one. Given his overall demeanor in that hearing, the context to me is pretty clear. For the record, I have no idea what he is referring to in regards to the "political environment in the early 2000s". I've been operating under the assumption he was so angry he stated a wrong date.
In summary, it's fairly clear that Kavanaugh himself and those who support him view him as some sort of karmic hand of justice against the left. I didn't need him to tell me from his own mouth to know that, but it's mighty helpful to hear it from the horse's mouth. Keep in mind this was at the tail-end of a diatribe in which he claimed that "the Clintons" were seeking to destroy him.
Attack on women? Yep it can be perceived that way. GOP Senate candidate Kevin Cramer: "I told Trump to avoid 'affirmative action pick' for the Supreme Court". Mission accomplished that pick became Kavanaugh.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/kevin-cramer-trump-supreme-court-affirmative-action-north-dakota-senate/index.html