SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[PleaseBlitz]

Eyewitness testimony is evidence. 

 

Here is a link to the Federal Rules of Evidence.  

 

https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-602/

[The Evil Genius]

2 minutes ago, B&G said:

Liberals are of one mind on this issue and that is deeply troubling.

 

I would really love to hear just one liberal tell me what evidence they have that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.  Not an emotionally charged diatribe but real evidence.

 

You've already been provided it. Dr Ford's testimony yesterday is evidence. Just because you don't believe her doesn't make it actual evidence.

Edited September 28, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Heisenberg]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

As expected, we will have a confirmed liar on the US Supreme Court.

 

Sad day for America.

 

Ignoring everything else, his partisan rant yesterday should have been enough to disqualify him from holding a seat. I understand everyone has bias/political leanings, but I expect better than that from someone with a lifetime appointment to one of the most influential positions in the country. I'd say the same thing if a left-leaning nominee ranted against the right and the Bush family.  Of course, that would actually require a nominee from a Democratic President to actually go through the confirmation process. ?

[Cooked Crack]

4 minutes ago, B&G said:

Liberals are of one mind on this issue and that is deeply troubling.

 

I would really love to hear just one liberal tell me what evidence they have that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.  Not an emotionally charged diatribe but real evidence.

Do you believe the accusations against Clarence Thomas were real?

[twa]

10 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Pretty sure he released a statement last night saying he's not going to cooperate with anyone.  

 

We could snatch him and waterboard him.

[skinsmarydu]

Anyone notice who's missing in this conversation all of a sudden? ?

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

@PleaseBlitz is character/ behavior consistent with the allegations considered evidence in the absence of evidence in your experience? 

 

What I am asking is basically - Everyone at the party says they dont remember. Its possible they were drugged or so drunk they dont remember if the allegation is true. So we dont know what may have happened. But if we do know that the accused is a heavy drinker, sexually...uh....aggressive? and there are other allegations that are consistent with the trend....is any of that considered evidence? 

 

These people need to say things under oath, not by having their lawyers release statements. 

[Fergasun]

@B&G
Dr. Ford's testimony was truthful, credible, and persuasive. There needs to be more evidence, for instance, did Mark Judge work at Safeway?

Regardless, innocent people do not simply clear their name in the court of public opinion. BK is upset about his name being drug through the mud. He was indignant. Yet, when pressed by Senator Durbin would not agree to a real, independent, investigation by the FBI.

Sure, maybe they just write 302 reports, but that all goes to the evidence.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

4 minutes ago, B&G said:

Liberals are of one mind on this issue and that is deeply troubling.

 

I would really love to hear just one liberal tell me what evidence they have that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.  Not an emotionally charged diatribe but real evidence.

 

Would you like a lecture on the Federal Rules of Evidence? How all the accusations can be admitted as evidence in one scenario if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect?

 

I mean, I doubt you need this lecture, because you are clearly an expert on Due Process specifically and American jurisprudence in the general. But I can do it  if you'd like.

 

Would you like?

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

 

  Of course, that would actually require a nominee from a Democratic President to actually go through the confirmation process. ?

 

AND be subjected to the circus

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

These people need to say things under oath, not by having their lawyers release statements. 

 

Right but if they do that is it considered evidence or just a statement I guess is what I'm asking. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, if this is just some partisan game, why was it not played on Gorsuch? That seat was flat out stolen by Mitch McConnell. Democrats tried to stop it, but they didn't create a conspiracy calling him a serial rapist probably because there was no evidence that he was a serial rapist.

 

Here is the frustrating part for me. The one story that I buy 100 percent is the story that he took his prick out at a Yale party. And that's the one everyone is dismissing as too outrageous to be true.

 

These weird-ass prep school athletes were ALWAYS taking their pricks out at parties. It's something I've seen maybe 20 times at Ivy League parties. And literally nowhere else in my life.

 

Prep school + Football is really the "You got your chocolate in my peanut" of white male privilege douchebaggery. And someone like Ted Cruz knows this because he probably spent four years tsk-tsking the morality of all these people while he jerked it in in Whig-Clio. (I am fairly confident in stating that Ted Cruz never sexually assaulted anyone, because I know women who attended Princeton with him and none of them were ever within 50 feet of him).

 

I've been exchanging text messages with 20 people this week and every conversation is the same, "We knew this guy, right? I mean ______ was exactly like this guy."

[Spaceman Spiff]

3 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

Again, this is not true.  Using capital letters does not make something more true.  Her testimony is evidence.  The fact that she talked about it, repeatedly, to various people, over multiple years, is evidence.  The fact that he clearly lied under oath is evidence against him.  This may not be enough evidence to convict in a court of law (though it certainly could be), but that threshold does not exist for the supreme court.  

 

Also, you cannot believably claim that you consider sexual assault horrific, and then support a president who has bragged about doing it, has over a dozen credible accusers, supported a child molester for senate, and is completely uninterested in investigating multiple allegations against the chosen supreme court pick.  

 

That's not really evidence, you said it yourself.  It's not enough to convict in the court of law, but this isn't the court of law as you said.  And I find her more believable than him, as I said yesterday.  Unfortunately this boils down to "she said, he said" with no hard physical evidence.  Her testimony isn't evidence. 

 

I get it, you don't like Kav.  You think he's a liar.  You don't like him, his politics.  But there's no hard evidence of what he allegedly did.  I know that's an unpopular opinion but it's not wrong.  

 

 

[justice98]

Joe Biden has been name dropped only about 100 times the last couple of days.

[DogofWar1]

45 minutes ago, B&G said:

What do we do when an allegation is made and then adamantly denied?  Do we use emotion to decide the issue? Or do we look at evidence?

 

Of course, we look at evidence.  And the evidence put forward by Dr. Ford was refuted by the witnesses themselves.

 

There is no getting past that even with Dr. Ford's compelling testimony.

 

This is gaslighting.

 

The alleged witnesses said they did not recall it.  And for them, besides Judge, that night was not significant.  Them not recalling the event is not the same as them saying it didn't happen.

 

In addition, in what universe is what was done to investigate considered "looking at the evidence."  Mark Judge was never brought before the committee.  He literally went into hiding to try and avoid the situation.  His sworn statement isn't worth the paper its printed on.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

That's not really evidence, you said it yourself.  It's not enough to convict in the court of law, but this isn't the court of law as you said.  And I find her more believable than him, as I said yesterday.  Unfortunately this boils down to "she said, he said" with no hard physical evidence.  Her testimony isn't evidence. 

 

I get it, you don't like Kav.  You think he's a liar.  You don't like him, his politics.  But there's no hard evidence of what he allegedly did.  I know that's an unpopular opinion but it's not wrong.  

 

 

 

1. None of you people know the definition of "evidence." You think you do because you watched Perry Mason or some ****, but you don't.

2. There are literally 500 Heritage Society drones that can do this job just as well as Kavanaugh. Three of these pricks are on the court already, and no one can tell them apart. At least half of them, probably, have no credible evidence of being a rapist. Nominate one of them.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Fergasun]

The difference between Mark Judge and Dr. Fords evidence is that one witness availed themselves to a "hostile" cross examination -- the other has not allowed them to be cross examined.

BK filibusterd the 5 minutes of every Senator like crazy as well. He came off to me a partisan entitled to his seat rather than an innocent man with a vested interest in clearing his good name.

We would even have former Yale roommates testifying about his drinking habits.... but hey... just trust Brett, he kept a calendar and went to Yale.

The ABA is even calling for a stop because this will delegitimize the SC...

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

That's not really evidence, you said it yourself.  It's not enough to convict in the court of law, but this isn't the court of law as you said.  And I find her more believable than him, as I said yesterday.  Unfortunately this boils down to "she said, he said" with no hard physical evidence.  Her testimony isn't evidence. 

 

 

 

This is not exactly true.  Her testimony would not be enough to convict him in a criminal trial, because the burden of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  In a civil trial, which is, basically, any trial where nobody is potentially going to jail, the burden of proof is "a preponderance of the evidence."  In other words, the standard in a civil trial is "which is more likely."  Given that Kav's senate confirmation hearing cannot send him to jail, and that you said you find her more believable than him, she'd win if this were anything but a criminal trial.  

[Hersh]

5 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

By the way, if this is just some partisan game, why was it not played on Gorsuch? That seat was flat out stolen by Mitch McConnell. Democrats tried to stop it, but they didn't create a conspiracy calling him a serial rapist probably because there was no evidence that he was a serial rapist.

 

Here is the frustrating part for me. The one story that I buy 100 percent is the story that he took his prick out at a Yale party. And that's the one everyone is dismissing as too outrageous to be true.

 

These weird-ass prep school athletes were ALWAYS taking their pricks out at parties. It's something I've seen maybe 20 times at Ivy League parties. And literally nowhere else in my life.

 

Prep school + Football is really the "You got your chocolate in my peanut" of white male privilege douchebaggery. And someone like Ted Cruz knows this because he probably spent four years tsk-tsking the morality of all these people while he jerked it in in Whig-Clio. (I am fairly confident in stating that Ted Cruz never sexually assaulted anyone, because I know women who attended Princeton with him and none of them were ever within 50 feet of him).

 

I've been exchanging text messages with 20 people this week and every conversation is the same, "We knew this guy, right? I mean ______ was exactly like this guy."

 

According the Lindsey Graham, the same thing didn't happen to Gorsuch cause this is the Kennedy seat. He was just speaking. I had to turn it off. 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

 

These weird-ass prep school athletes were ALWAYS taking their pricks out at parties. It's something I've seen maybe 20 times at Ivy League parties. And literally nowhere else in my life.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do women continue to go to parties where it is know they will have pricks out?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.......or are they ignorant of what you claim is obvious?

 

 

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

You believe 'a drinking game played by friends of Brett Kavanaugh' is a cover up attempt? 

 

What I believe is, Kavanaugh lied about what "Devil's Triangle" meant.  As well as "Boffing" two terms that people had already researched and figured out what meant.  So the likelihood that both of these terms meant something completely different to his circle of friends is pretty much slim to none. Then you have the wikipage for the terms being changed just about live right as Kavanaugh is answering the question about the first term.  

 

It doesn't take a genius for Kavanaugh to have a good idea he was going to be asked about his yearbook stuff which had scoured over and when you listen to the way he answers the question of what "devil's triangle" means he clearly doesn't sound very confident in his own answer. 

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Why do women continue to go to parties where it is know they will have pricks out?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.......or are they ignorant of what you claim is obvious?

 

 

 

You mean, "why do teenagers...."  <---- Is that a serious inquiry, because that would be hard to answer.  Probably for starters, they are teenagers.

[Bozo the kKklown]

@B&G, you don't even know what is written in the Constitution. Please stop talking about legal matters.

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Why do women continue to go to parties where it is know they will have pricks out?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.......or are they ignorant of what you claim is obvious?

 

 

 

There you have it folks: Victim blaming. 

 

The source is not surprising. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

1. None of you people know the definition of "evidence." You think you do because you watched Perry Mason or some ****, but you don't.

2. There are literally 500 Heritage Society drones that can do this job just as well as Kavanaugh. Three of these pricks are on the court already, and no one can tell them apart. At least half of them, probably, have no credible evidence of being a rapist. Nominate one of them.

 

Thanks, LKB. 

1.  I'm being sincere when I say you can tell us the definition of evidence, instead of lording it over us plebeians with how smart and qualified you are.  

 

2.  I agree.  

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

What I believe is, Kavanaugh lied about what "Devil's Triangle" meant.  As well as "Boffing" two terms that people had already researched and figured out what meant.  So the likelihood that both of these terms meant something completely different to his circle of friends is pretty much slim to none. Then you have the wikipage for the terms being changed just about live right as Kavanaugh is answering the question about the first term.  

 

It doesn't take a genius for Kavanaugh to have a good idea he was going to be asked about his yearbook stuff which had scoured over and when you listen to the way he answers the question of what "devil's triangle" means he clearly doesn't sound very confident in his own answer. 

 

He's a liar.

 

We've all known Brett Kavanaugh's in our lifetime. 

 

After Donald Trump, it was only inevitable that a douchebag like him with a proven history of lying, and now assaulting women, would make his way onto the Supreme Court.

 

I got some **** on this board when I said that overturning Roe v. Wade was never about the "right to life". It has and will always be about the subjugation of women in our society, for the benefit and pleasure of perverted men like Donald Trump, Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh. Controlling women's bodies, whether through assault, rape or removing their ability to make personal choices is a core tenet of every fundamentalist religious society around the world.