Says the attorney always on the losing side of legal debates. How'd the Crane vs McLane lawsuit turnout? How about the CSN debacle? Or the Trayvon Martin case? Get something right legal boy and you can talk.
You saying a list of attendees minus 2 people from Ford's version doesn't corroborate anything. No one but Ford remembers such a party they all say they don't remember any such party and her key witness says she doesn't know Kavanaugh. Again not corroborating a damn thing.
Its strange to me that you guys seem to think that it is suspicious that people have forgotten events that happened on a date 35 years ago. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that it doesn't help Ford, but the idea that it proves a conspiracy or something? Seriously, pick a high school party from your memory where something memorable happened - maybe somebody got into a fight, or puked on someone's clothes or whatever. List exactly what date it was, everybody who was there, what order they arrived. How you got there, what order people arrived, and any other details you can provide. If you have that kind of eidetic memory, I am thoroughly impressed. If you do you are a very unusual, special person.
Even more obscure than that. Nobody but Ford and those that attacked her knew anything out of the norm happened. Her friends had no idea. To them it was probably boring. So that makes it even more difficult for them to remember.
In a courtroom the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. While this is not court, in no way can anyone say there is not reasonable doubt this ever happened. There is no way they can believe her accusations with literally no proof. Laying any and all conspiracy theories aside, Dr. Ford's accusations simply have nothing to back them up. Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted in the past but in no way has she proven she was or that it was Kavanaugh who did it. If there was even a little bit of corroboration Kavanaugh would be doomed. Heck he would probably be doomed if there was confirmation he was even at a party with Dr, Ford but as it stands there is absolutely nothing to back this up. This country has always had the value of innocent until proven guilty not guilty after accusation.
Please detail your (obviously) correct opinions on these legal debates -- with you and Copernicus posting it's like reading The Journal of Legal Studies.
Not really. Not when it comes to job interviews. You do know that a someone isn't entitled to a Supreme Court position right?
You do realize he is one of the most qualified people in this country for the position and there is no verifiable reason to keep him off of the court. So given those two truths he will be confirmed within a few days. Once that happens he is indeed "entitled" to the position as long as he wants it.
What makes him "one of the most qualified"? There are better candidates that have more individual merit than a prep school frat boy who turned into a partisan political operative trying to take down his opposing political party's president because of a consenting blow job. He's not entitled to a Supreme Court position.
Getting assaulted (allegedly) would be different than any of those things, IMO (fight, puking). In fact, if it was two guys that got into a fight at a party, I bet both of them remember where the party was, what month (more or less) it was, what year it was, and other key details. Of course, the specific date might get lost......
Read your own statement mr your admitting that one of the people that was reportedly at the party doesn't remember .
The verifiable reason for keeping him off the court is that he lied under oath, showed that he has a partisan bias, makes judgments without evidence to back up those judgments among others.
That in no way corroborates her story, it just says that he hung out with his friends. There's literally nothing placing her there, hence her story isn't corroborated at all. Her story wasn't that he hung out with his friends, her story was that she was there while he was hanging out with his friends.
question did he not lie under oath ,if so you still think he should be a justice on the highest court in the land.
Her therapists' notes would indicate that she doesn't have a clear memory and that the story has changed over time...oh and that Kavanaugh was never mentioned. Also, you have to wonder what she's hiding given that she won't turn over those notes. I mean, we already know she perjured herself when she said that the reason she was going to the couple's therapy in 2012 had to do with home renovations....because someone pulled the permits and found out that they were done in 2008, so why was she really there? Why did the story come up in the first place.....it wasn't about front doors, she already had that done 4 years prior. What's the real story? When it comes to others not remembering her....well it's not just that they didn't remember her there, Dr. Ford's close friend said she was never at a party with Kavanaugh ever and never even met him. Would that be the case if they had been at an intimate 6 person party? I'm not sure it would. You basically have to want to believe her story in order to say that everyone else is mistaken and only the person that remembers almost nothing about it is the person who remembers correctly. I think the most reasonable take is that while something may have happened to Dr. Ford at some point "in her late teens", or in her mid teens as the allegation eventually changed to, but I think there's just no way to say that it was Brett Kavanaugh that did it. In fact, there's no reason for anyone to believe that he had anything to do with it based on what we know. As to your belief that he shouldn't get appointed to the SCOTUS....well that doesn't really matter, he's going to be.
You mean the friend of Ford's that another friend of hers tampered with in an effort to her coerce her in to altering her statement. At least Ford's friends understand how damaging it is for Geyser to say she does not KNOW him or REMEMBER ever being at a party with him. Give it up already.
The words he spoke are listed next to the actual facts that show he lied. If the facts and truth are considered leftist spin by you, then I don't know what to say. There are a couple of claims that require reason to know that they are a lie. Do you believe that poor wittle Bret vomited during Beach Week because of his poor wittle tummy-wummy couldn't handle the spicy food? The lies that he told like that do require people to be able to use reason to call BS on it. If you want to call that leftist spin, then you may.
