The Cellar - I'm confused

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - I'm confused (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=33740)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 1016432)

I'll just say this then. Given the facts you know, and the evidence she could not produce, do you believe her case would have survived a real criminal trial?

(Not that it wouldn't open with statute of limitations - which is in place because of specifically these sorts of problems - i.e., cases lose all their potential evidence pro AND con - and human memory is ridiculously flawed over time.)

The anti-Kav side needed her not to go through actual trial conditions, which would have displayed more clearly to the world that there was no criminal case to be made.

The pro-Kav side needed to appear somewhat considerate and not put a potential victim through the kind of grilling a real trial would include.

All this is just part of what made it a perfect storm so that both sides could be seen as angelic from the POV of their constituencies

Both sides got roughly what they wanted although they certainly won't admit that

And so did the public actually - eating this shit up not realizing it's turd sandwiches. We love it, we want it, it's on all channels

I don’t think she can prove it without Kav’s friend rolling over. An extended look at him may have shown a pattern of behavior inconsistent with sitting on the SC.

I do blame Feinstein, both sides played a game which ignored the good of the country in favor of party. My perspective is that of someone who found Dr. Ford more credible.

Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?

There were three accusers, dozens of witnesses they identified, and many that came forward for the accusers or for Kavanaugh. The FBI "investigation" only interviewed nine people, which included only one of the three accusers, and did not include the accused. They stapled the results of that into a thousand page document that Senators had an hour to read, and were prohibited from "characterizing".

So one of the facts I know is that they did their damnedest to avoid looking into it, and to prevent people from seeing what little they did look into, or saying what little they saw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 1016447)

Assuming Mark Judge had testified and agreed with everything you say, would the charge have been rape?

Probably attempted rape, definitely sexual assault. That was a misdemeanor at the time, with a statute of limitations (happily no longer the case), so he wouldn't go to jail over it.

But the question* isn't whether he should go to jail, it's whether he should be on the Supreme Court.

* in this thread, of course that's pretty much moot in the real world now

Big win for the Republicans. Hiring a criminal prosecutor for the public hearings was successful in shifting the conversation away from being a "job interview" to being a "criminal trial." The "trial" was unwinnable--because it WASN'T a trial, and the fact that he f a c e p l a n t e d the interview is being ignored.

I heard the classified version of the FBI report concluded Ford might've been the wife of a Supreme Court Justice today except that Kav dumped her in high school 'cause she wouldn't put out and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Lot's of theory here about this and that.

Here's another: Ford is a loon or an operative or both; Kav is just a boring, run-of-mill guy who's only 'crime' was bein' nominated by Trump; the Dems had and have a similar set of debilitating faux-scandals waitin' for anyone on the publicized short list who might get nominated when Ruthie keels over.

Conspiracies to the Left of me, conspiracies to the Right, here I am...

Unexpected (by me, at least) twist:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNN

Chief Justice John Roberts said in a letter on Wednesday that he had transferred judicial misconduct complaints related to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial Council of the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.
...
Tymkovich can handle the complaints himself, dismiss them or appoint a special committee to examine them.
...
Tymkovich is a George W. Bush appointee who is on Trump's Supreme Court short list.

So if Trump does get another pick, it could be the person who handled the ethics complaints from the last one.

That's hilarious. You couldn't make it up.

The complaints only relate to his crazy ass testimony so at least we're getting away from 35 year old memories and cover-ups.