Bitcoin Forum

a person should be able to take responsibility for their own decisions and ramification of those decisions. 

I think at this point I should split the topic as I seem to have taken it way off topic!

From what I can gather, Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist who will uphold the constitution as written. I am not aware of any appellate court opinions or speeches in which he advocated for rights enumerated in the constitution to not be upheld -- if someone has an example please post one here.

The timing is clearly political, and will probably result in all accusers of these types of crimes having less credibility.

The claim in itself is not credible IMO, it is missing too many details and it doesn’t look like it can be corroborated.

I think there will be pressure on a small number of democrats to vote for him who represent “red” (leaning) states.

I think this might have had a bigger chance of derailing the nomination if it didn’t come out at a clearly politically motivated time.

Maybe we could have sex cards  :D  you flash you sex card meaning you both want it without trying the grope thing then that way no getting blamed for sexual assault..
OH and stick it on the blockchain ::) :D

That wouldn't work nowadays.  You can have a signed contract and the woman still has the right to change her mind, even during sex.

I don't understand how someone could be having sex and suddenly change their mind, but I don't understand most of what people do...

What a shocking development Kavanaugh accuser is now refusing to testify in front of the senate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45568450
"The woman who accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her will not testify to the Senate next week, says her lawyer."

It is almost impossible to overstate the damage done to America's moral compass by taking the charges leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh seriously.

It undermines foundational moral principles of any decent society.

Those who claim the charges against Judge Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford are important and worth investigating, and that they ultimately, if believed, invalidate his candidacy for the U.S. Supreme Court are stating that:

a) What a middle-aged adult did in high school is all we need to know to evaluate an individual's character -- even when his entire adult life has been impeccable.

b) No matter how good and moral a life one has led for 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years, it is nullified by a sin committed as teenager.

No decent -- or rational -- society has ever believed such nihilistic nonsense.

This is another example of the moral chaos sown by secularism and the left. In any society rooted in Judeo-Christian values, it is understood that people should be morally assessed based on how they behave over the course of their lifetime -- early behavior being the least important period in making such an assessment.

These religious values taught us that all of us are sinners and, therefore, with the exception of those who have engaged in true evil, we need to be very careful in making moral evaluations of human beings.

And, of course, we were taught to extend forgiveness when people demonstrate through their actions that they have changed. As a well-known ancient Jewish adage put it: "Where the penitent stands, the most righteous cannot stand."

In other words, the highest moral achievement is moral improvement.

Perhaps the most important principle violated by taking this 36-year-old high school-era charge seriously is the principle of the moral bank account.

Every one of us has a moral bank account. Our good deeds are deposits, and our bad deeds are withdrawals. We therefore assess a person the same way we assess our bank account. If our good actions outweigh our bad actions, we are morally in the black; if our bad actions greatly outweigh our good actions, we are morally in the red.

By all accounts -- literally all -- Brett Kavanaugh's moral bank account is way in the black. He has led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family and commitment to community few Americans can match. On these grounds alone, the charges against him as a teenager should be ignored.

So, why is this charge taken seriously?

One reason is, as I recently wrote, the greatest fear in America is fear of the left -- the fear of what the left will do to you if you cross it. Not fear of God. Not fear of doing wrong. Fear of the left. Offend the left and you will lose your reputation and, quite often, your job or your business.

Another reason is pure, amoral, demagogic politics. No honest American of any political persuasion believes that if a woman were to charge a Democrat-appointed judge such as Merrick Garland with doing to her 36 years ago in high school what Brett Kavanaugh is charged with having done 36 years ago in high school, the Democratic Party and the media would be demanding the confirmation vote be delayed or the candidate withdraw.
....

In sum, I am not interested in whether Mrs. Ford, an anti-Trump activist, is telling the truth. Because even if true, what happened to her was clearly wrong, but it tells us nothing about Brett Kavanaugh since the age of 17. But for the record, I don't believe her story. Aside from too many missing details -- most women remember virtually everything about the circumstances of a sexual assault no matter how long ago -- few men do what she charges Kavanaugh with having done only one time. And no other woman has ever charged him with any sexual misconduct.

Do not be surprised if a future Republican candidate for office or judicial nominee -- no matter how exemplary a life he has led -- is accused of sexual misconduct ... from when he was in elementary school.

WASHINGTON — A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims.

"Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina Miranda King, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."

I continue to be shocked shocked I tell you as more damming "evidence" keeps surfacing.

Accuser's schoolmate says she recalls hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna911111

Never mind the fact that the accuser stated that she never told anyone about this until 2012. Minor details minor details.

Come on republicans you have got to do better than that if you want to crack this set up hahaha.  Dems got you good on this one, see ya later Kavahaugh bye bye nomination!

She is making a life destroying accusation against an individual who by all other accounts has led an impeccable life.

She has offered no concrete evidence other then her word.

She has so far refused the opportunity to state her accusations in public or in private in front of the US senate which has rearranged its schedule for the sole purpose of hearing from her.

Furthermore she has a history of political activism for the Democratic Party.

Maybe you are right, however,  and a simple accusation alone will be enough to destroy Kavahaugh. That would say a lot about the state of our country today.

Honestly I don't think this is going to turn out well for the Democrats. Too may people on both sides of the political aisle still value truth, justice, and the presumption of innocence over the exercise of raw power and unprovable allegations.

LOL ya right both sides of the political aisle only care about their side of the aisle don't be so naive.  The republicans are trying desperately to stack the SC and the dems are trying desperately to stop that from happening until they can do the stacking...  The only reason Murkowski and Harris were thinking of breaking the party line on this vote before is the abortion issue and the importance of that 1 issue to their personal political careers IE the women in their states that voted for them...  Otherwise it would have almost surely been a full partly line vote.  The dems knew this and targeted those 2 women so hard, you can be sure the republicans were doing the same behind closed doors.

Well Flying Hellfish I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one.

We could debate whether the accusation of attempted rape is life destroying or not

You're so worried about Kavanaugh's life being destroyed yet what about the vitcims life IF the allegations are true her life is far more "destroyed" but the right who speaks about wanting the truth already made up their minds without allowing the FBI to do their duty without an actual investigation...  The president is so concerned about the truth I still haven't seen the WH issue the direction to the FBI to do it's job.

Dr. Ford is under no obligation to talk to the senate committee moral or legal in public or private and for you to demand that she does so before an organized investigation is conducted is the same as not caring about the truth in order to pencil whip a nom through the house, ya you want the truth alright nah you want a hardcore conservative in the SC at least be honest with us and yourself.

It's kind of funny how Dr. Ford is accused of lying and being set up by the right, yet they have the power to demand the best people in the world find out as much as they can.  

For some really strange and odd reason the women the right accuses of lying wants these people to investigate and the right who claims to want the truth doesn't want them to investigate and would very much rather try and ram Kavanaugh's nom through the house...

Critical thinking is important even if almost entirely missing from this forum.

The right is shitty their pants about 2 things
1) Trump massively fuck the republicans and they party is shitting their pants at the thought of a wave of blue in the MT's and are desperate to get Kavanaugh in knowing this may be their last nom they can force through LOL
2) The right is worried the women isn't lying and having the FBI involved in that scenario really isn't going to turn out well for the right.

....whether or not the women was almost raped........

Why should the president do so if the accuser is unwilling to testify under oath to the Senate and answer some questions about her accusation?

If she truly wants this she should testify and present her information. If she chooses not to testify the Senate should proceed to a vote without her information.

However, I am currently sceptical of this accusation and suspect a partisan ploy. I would like to see Ms. Ford testify in the hopes that the truth of the matter reveals itself.

who is then confirmed before the Democrats have any possibility of taking back the Senate.

"Almost raped" sound a lot to me like "almost pregnant."

It is or it is not.

Check the timelines on nom's getting in, even if someone is rammed through starting today there isn't enough time before the MT's.

NEW YORK (AP) — It started as a series of phone calls among old high-school friends and ended up embroiling 65 women in the firestorm over a sexual assault allegation that could shape the Supreme Court.

In a matter of hours, they all signed onto a letter rallying behind high court nominee and their high school friend Brett Kavanaugh as someone who “has always treated women with decency and respect.” And they signed up, whether they anticipated it or not, for becoming a focus of scrutiny themselves.

The powerful strength-in-numbers statement, offered to bolster Kavanaugh’s denial of a claim that he attacked a girl at a party during their high school years, has drawn questions from journalists, social media skeptics, even Hollywood figures.
How well did the women know him? How could a statement and 65 signatures come together so fast after outlines of the allegation first surfaced publicly? And after subsequently hearing the details and learning that his accuser was a woman some of them knew, do they stand by their declaration?

Yes, say more than a dozen signers who have since spoken to The Associated Press or other media outlets.
“Brett wouldn’t do that in a million years. I’m totally confident. That would be completely out of character for him,” said Paula Duke Ebel. She said she interacted with Kavanaugh hundreds of times while they were students in a close-knit constellation of single-sex Catholic schools around Washington in the 1980s.
Christine Blasey Ford, 51, now a psychology professor in California, said a very intoxicated Kavanaugh cornered her in a bedroom during a party in the early 1980s. She said he pinned her on a bed, tried to undress her and clamped his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream. She escaped only when a friend of his jumped on the bed and knocked them all over.

The letter was released the morning after the allegation first got wide public attention. The letter and its roster of supporters seemed to come at supersonic speed and out of the blue.
Women who organized and signed it say it was a rapid response by a social network that endures decades after they graduated. They say it was easy to mobilize: a chain of friends calling, texting and emailing friends from a Washington-area world where many still live and see each other.
...
the letter backing Kavanaugh is from women who vouch that they knew Kavanaugh, now a federal appeals court judge, personally as a high school student.

Several said they interacted with him extensively through sporting events, dances, parties and other socializing or the phone calls that occupied teenage weeknights in the pre-texting era.
One worked with him at a summer camp. A second sought his help with homework. Two dated him. Some still see him at social functions.

At least one, though, hadn’t spent time or talked one-on-one with him but still felt comfortable attaching her name based on the social situations they shared.
Others who signed declined to comment or didn’t respond to inquiries. The AP left messages for all 65.

Some have been taken aback by the attention. Many have stayed mum to avoid “the media frenzy,” signer Maura Kane told Fox News, the outlet of choice for several who have given interviews.

Julie DeVol told the AP she didn’t really anticipate the letter would provoke such intense interest, though she sensed Kavanaugh’s critics “would do anything” to delay his confirmation vote.
...
Women who signed the letter said they didn’t know about or recall the party Ford described, and they said her account of a “stumbling drunk” Kavanaugh didn’t jibe with their memories of a boy who drank some beer alongside them but never lost control or crossed a line with girls.

“There were kids who did act kind of crazy. ... He just wasn’t that guy,” said Williams, who recalls hanging out with Kavanaugh mainly in groups but sometimes one-on-one. “He was the kid who always did the right thing.”
That’s why six dozen women were willing to put their names on that letter, said signer Missy Bigelow Carr, who worked at a summer camp with Kavanaugh and coached girls basketball against him as an adult.

“If there was any indication that he didn’t treat even one of us with respect or acted in a manner that disrespected girls/women,” she wrote in an email, “that would not be the case.”

The schedule is defined by the Senate majority. If McConnell wants, he can bring a final nomination vote to the floor on the same day as the President makes the nomination. It would be highly unusual,

The alumnae behind the letter of support are from Holton-Arms School, a private all-girls school in Bethesda, Maryland. Sarah Burgess, an alumna who graduated in 2005, told HuffPo that, as of late Monday morning, more than 200 fellow alumnae had signed on to the letter.


Elizabeth Warren
✔
@SenWarren
 Christine Blasey Ford is brave, deserves to be heard, and treated with respect as she raises new questions about Brett Kavanaugh.  No votes until that happens.

9:11 AM - Sep 17, 2018
40.5K
10.9K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The letter's authors wrote that "Ford's experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton," and said that "many of us are survivors ourselves."

The letter of support for Ford stands in contrast to a separate letter, written by 65 women who purport to have known Kavanaugh while in high school. That letter was sent to judiciary committee chairperson Sen. Chuck Grassley, and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and in it, the authors and signatories vouch for Kavanaugh's character and behavior toward women.

That's a cute article I have one as well and this one has 200.  200>65 since you like to bold out how many people have signed a letter!

“Dr. Blasey Ford’s experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves,” the letter reads. First circulated by a group of women who do not know Ford and who graduated from Holton-Arms, a private all-girls school in Bethesda, Maryland, in 2005, the letter has signatories from students who attended between 1962 and 2018."

Kate Gold, a class of 2005 Holton-Arms graduate who is an acupuncturist in Maryland, noted that the letter does not refer specifically to Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh but rather to the experiences of women more generally.

“A connection we all have is that in hearing her story, each and every one of us, resonated immediately, knowing that the situation she described could have happened to any one of us or our friends, and sometimes similar situations did,” Gold told Vox in an email.

She continued: “As far as Dr. Ford’s specific allegations, it is inconsequential/irrelevant to us whether anyone has heard them before, and in no way affects our belief that she is telling the truth. What we are referring to in our letter is the nearly ubiquitous experience of high school girls as they try to navigate coming of age in a society dominated by toxic masculinity.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has set 10 a.m. Friday as the deadline for Christine Blasey Ford's legal team to respond to his request for her to speak to the committee regarding her sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
...
"We are doing everything that we can to make Dr. Ford comfortable to coming before the committee in an open session or a closed session, or a public or a private interview," the Iowa Republican told reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday. "That's four different ways she can choose to come. So, I'm not worried about anything other than just focusing for the next few days on encouraging her to come."

Ford has asked for the FBI to investigate the allegations she's made before she testifies for the committee. Grassley sent a follow-up letter to Ford later Wednesday outlining why the Senate and not the FBI should investigate her claims.

"The FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee," Grassley wrote. "Nor is it tasked with investigating a matter simply because the Committee deems it important. The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominee and consenting to the nomination if the circumstances merit. We have no power to commandeer an Executive Branch agency into conducting our due diligence. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee's qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone."

It's cute you claim missing details and then dismiss it all without hearing Dr. Fords testimony?? 

BTW especially since this isn't a court of law the lie detector test Dr. Ford took, the revelation in 2012 (pre political motivation) to her therapist (which IS corroborated by her husband BTW) is all going to be brought up!

I've seen no information at present that would indicate anything but the dems towing the party line on this one. 

The only hook Kavanaugh had open to him was that he was a minor and hammered. But by him categorically denying it happened he has turned this into a situation where one of them is lying and one of them is telling the truth.

Dr. Ford on the other hand is likely to give detailed accounts of the events of the night and other things from around the time. 

My cousins to the south can rest a little easier knowing that ~50% of the American people are one step closer to keeping their right to choose for themselves.

Agreed, and this is sad. If the charges are false which is quite possible those who are behind it are throwing the real victims of terrible crimes under the bus in a desperate attempt to halt a qualified nominee who's ideology they dislike.

Facts so far as reported by the media:

[...]


4) Ms. Ford is reported to have requested anonymity and stated that she did not want to come forward but is also reported to have taken a polygraph test in August.

5) The accuser attorney said Ms. Ford was willing to testify before the Judiciary committee but she has yet to respond to the Senate's official request that she do so.

The "#MeToo" stuff is often guilty-until-proven-innocent, which I absolutely hate, but the accuser in this case apparently has some years-old records of the accusation. It may be a stronger case than usual,

But I also wouldn't put it past Kavanaugh to sexually assault someone; it sounds like he was part of a disgusting rich-kids culture where that kind of thing could easily happen.

Generally speaking, people who commit these types of crimes are repeat offenders, and it is unusual for there to only be exactly one accuser decades after the fact.

Personally, I hope that Kavanaugh gets replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, though that's probably unlikely.

tell me why someone controlling such a set up mission would place Kavanaugh's buddy in the room with them by Dr. Fords admission?

If the government was full of a bunch of honest philosophers who really cared about doing things the right way, then IMO there's enough evidence to halt the process and look into it carefully.

....
One person is making an unsubstantiated claim about something from 35 years ago, that she told no one about for over 30 years, and two people say it didn't happen.

She will testify to the FBI if they demand it.  Anyone actually wanting the truth should be doing whatever they can to get the information from here, if only the president could make an agency do some digging to find out the truth, gee that would be sweet.

That's not how the criminal justice system works. You file a criminal report (ideally not 30 years late), and you provide the appropriate law enforcement agency with as much information and evidence as you can provide. The standard protocol for filing a criminal report is making an official statement. If there is no report, no statement, no evidence, there is no investigation.

You don't get to demand the FBI go dig through some ones life just based on statements alone. That is their discretion,

That is their discretion,

Except that this isn't a criminal proceeding.  You do know the FBI does background investigations on someone being nominated to the highest court in the land right?  You do know that many times the FBI has re-opened background investigations based on new allegations right?  Specifically the FBI re-opened the background investigation into Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill came forward with her allegations, which again in an ironic twist had senate republicans demanding an FBI investigation into the new claims (some of those senators still sit on the committee today).  That investigation lasted 2 days.


Really, digging through someone's life based on statements is literally a major part of a background investigation, they need to be corroborated or exculpated that's literally what an investigation is. Before nominating a person for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land this always happens and Kavanaugh has had them before.....

....She has already said she doesn't remember what year the alleged incident occurred, how she got to the party, who else was at the party, or how she left the party. She doesn't even know where this happened other than it was in Montgomery County, MD, which is where she lived at the time......

According to Wikipedia it happened in the summer of 1982, which would put Kavanaugh's age at the alleged event's time at 17. He was a juvenile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford
alleging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 and he was 17.

For this to even be a crime, the DA would have had to plea to a judge to move it to criminal court, and to treat him as an adult.

Without that it's just an event for juvenile court, if anything.

Well, where does this stop?

Should we hear about something he did when he was 16?

....he would likely be tried as a minor, who sits on the Supreme Court (or the DC circuit court of appeals). Although there may be a scenario in which it is unclear that the juvenile court has jurisdiction if it can’t be proven he was a minor at the time, and the “adult” court may not have jurisdiction if it cannot be proven he was over 18.
. ....

.....
I have read a report that Christine doesn’t want to fly from CA to DC to testify and therefore must make the drive. If this is true, it would only be one more piece of evidence that shows this was intended to move the vote past the midterms.

In more awesome news for the GOP, Senator Collins was "appalled" by Trumps latest tweet about Dr. Ford and that it was "inappropriate and wrong".
......

In more awesome news for the GOP, Senator Collins was "appalled" by Trumps latest tweet about Dr. Ford and that it was "inappropriate and wrong".

You can rest assured when Collins was answering that question she was speaking directly to the women in Maine who voted for her!

I wonder how far Trump will push Collins and Murkowski lol.

Soon you will have to have a contract recorded on ze blockchain before you can even look in the direction of a female.

What's even more scary is that any female can now accuse some poor chap of improper behaviour decades down the line and she will be believed and the

lad's fucking toast.


 ::)

The media would present it that way, but that's not the way real people think.

Check this out.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/when_the_puppets_wont_cooperate_cnn_surprised_by_womens_reaction_to_kavanaugh_case.html

WASHINGTON — A press adviser helping lead the Senate Judiciary Committee’s response to a sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has stepped down amid evidence he was fired from a previous political job in part because of a sexual harassment allegation against him.

Garrett Ventry, 29, who served as a communications aide to the committee chaired by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, had been helping coordinate the majority party's messaging in the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago at a high school party. In a response to NBC News, Ventry denied any past "allegations of misconduct."

After NBC News raised questions about Ventry's employment history and the sexual harassment allegation against him, Judiciary Committee Spokesman Taylor Foy replied in a statement: "While (Ventry) strongly denies allegations of wrongdoing, he decided to resign to avoid causing any distraction from the work of the committee."

Ventry also resigned Saturday from the public relations company where he had been on a temporary leave of absence to work for the Judiciary Committee, a company spokesman told NBC News.

Republicans familiar with the situation had been concerned that Ventry, because of his history, could not lead an effective communications response.

Ventry worked as a social media adviser in 2017 in the office of North Carolina House Majority Leader John Bell, who fired Ventry after several months.

“Mr. Ventry did work in my office and he’s no longer there, he moved on,” Bell told NBC News. He refused to discuss the precise nature of the firing.
(...)

Kim Strassel of the WSJ editorial board is now reporting (https://twitter.com/kimstrassel?lang=en) that a Washington Post "journalist" had reached out to Mr Judge, who was allegedly in the room with Kavanaugh saying that there were 3 boys and one girl at the party in question The Washington Post's story says there were four boys at the party.

Another issue is that there was someone allegedly at the party, Leland Ingham (now Keyser), who is a women who was one of Christine's classmates and close friends. She has said publicly that she does not know Kavanaugh, nor was she ever at any party that Kavanaugh attended. This means that everyone allegedly at the alleged party has denied the existence of the party, under penalty of perjury (or similar), except for Christine Beasley Ford, who appears to not want to speak under oath regarding the alleged incident.  

Funny suddenly no one is cheer leading for Kavanaugh's removal here any more...

Funny no one is cheer leading for the actual truth

Meh this forum attracts all the conspiracy theory crowd .  Most of them are right wing males who for obvious reasons want Kavanaugh.  Site demographics are important even if you want to ignore them LOL.

Not to mention it does get tiring arguing with the knuckle dragging men here who have no interest in anything other than making sure their conservative religious judge gets on the SC.

Funny no one is cheer leading for the actual truth, because that is actually more important than political issues especially when dealing with a lifetime nomination to the SC and a generation of jurisprudence.

It appears there are now two additional claims against Kavanaugh. One is by Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and claims he exposed himself to her in a college party. Multiple witnesses have said this did not happen nor that they heard about this until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other is apparently represented by the Creepy Porn Lawyer, who in my opinion has no credibility but will be sure to make a circus.

For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.

After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
...
Meanwhile, lawyer Michael Avenatti - best known for representing adult entertainer Stephanie Clifford, said on Twitter that he represents a woman "with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh," and that his client is not Ramirez.

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, "This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.

....
You don't just selectively destroy targets that suit your agenda.

Could it be that Trump backers are the ones who hired these dem people to accuse K just to make the dems look bad when the accusations are shown to be frivolous?

8)

(...)
A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”
(...)

It appears there are now two additional claims against Kavanaugh. One is by Deborah Ramirez, who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh and claims he exposed himself to her in a college party. Multiple witnesses have said this did not happen nor that they heard about this until Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. The other is apparently represented by the Creepy Porn Lawyer, who in my opinion has no credibility but will be sure to make a circus.

The New Yorker story is based on hearsay from unnamed source (singular)

I would not take anything the creepy porn lawyer says seriously. If you are the victim of a crime, especially a serious crime, I would suggest not retaining his services because I won’t take any evidence seriously and will go into hearing your story as being made up for political purposes.  

So let's try again - why no investigation yet? Two women, two separate incidents, both asking for investigation so if they're lying that would be a huge boost for Trump, McConnell, et al ahead of midterms.

Oh I don't know maybe because there is no accusation of a crime that is not well beyond the statute of limitations..

Or maybe its because all 8 of the people the two accusers state were present at the time of the assault are already on record with various media outlets and all of their testimony supports Kavanaugh.

Or maybe it's because the demands for investigation have every appearance of a transparent political ploy that has nothing to do with seeking truth.

Or perhaps it's because this is ultimately a question of suitability for office and the constitution clearly assigns this duty to the Senate which also has the power of the subpoena to carry it out.

Not really true (no statute of limitations in Maryland AFAIK) but I'm talking about a background check on Mr. Kavanaugh, not a criminal investigation.


Media is the wrong place to do that. A proper investigation would be better.


Yet the FBI often conducts background investigations for appointments like this. Even more so if it's a "political ploy" - why should we entrust this to the hyper-politicized Senate instead of a law enforcement agency?

When a shred of physical evidence supporting these stories emerges let me know. Until then it is quite convenient that the "due diligence" in this matter just so happens to benefit the Democrats regardless of veracity for the short term regarding mid term elections. I am sure the timing of the reports of these supposed assaults has nothing at all to do with the veracity of their statements. It must be a complete coincidence this was released days before the confirmation hearing. The stalling for more time also must be a coincidence, along with the first accuser's clear democratic and intelligence ties. All just a bunch of happy coincidences right?

Regarding law enforcement, perhaps they should try FILING CRIMINAL CHARGES if they want an investigation. Of course they won't because they know filing false charges is a serious crime.

So you are correct, why should we believe a hyper-politicized congress intentionally hijacking our normal judicial process to delay it for their benefit? Oh right because it serves your ideological goals.  ;)

Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen.

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public, and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report. 

You are glossing over the fact that any delay will benefit the Democrats.

You are also ignoring the fact that all the evidence the FBI could potentially gather has already been made public

and that the FBI does not make determinations as to the credibility of witnesses in background check investigations, so the Washington Post and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker appear to have done everything the FBI could have done, although I have doubts that the information in the New Yorker article would meet the standard to make it in any FBI background check report.

The Senate Judiciary committee is already investigating Kavanaugh and the evidence is all more or less public and/or is being made public.

The women from CA should file a police report if she believes she is the victim of a crime. The reasons victims of these types of crimes do not go to the police do not exist in her case anymore because she has very much gone public with her story. Obviously she will not do this because it is a crime to file a false police report.  

I believe it is fair to say this, though. She reported her beliefs prior to the Kavanaugh hearings. It was Fienstien that kept silent about her letter and reported it at the 11th hour.

Nobody would have complained about these charges being introduced at the proper time.

The accuser's lawyer initially said her client (the accuser from CA) would do anything it takes to get to testify in front of the committee, and when she received an invitation to testify, she later demanded a FBI investigation, so I would not give her all that much credit for reporting it before the hearings.

She also only gave her letter to a single Senator, who already was almost certainly going to vote against the nomination. Surely, if the accuser wanted her story heard by someone relevant, she would have sent it to Senator Grassley, Senator Graham, or Senator Flake, the later of which is always looking for ways to 'stick it' to Trump.

Lastly, we don't know who leaked the letter. It could have been Feinstein, the CA representative, either of their staffers, or someone from the accuser's camp. I would not outright dismiss the theory that someone from Ford's camp leaked the allegation. The initial article (https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/) published by the Intercept was critical of Feinstein, so it was probably not done at her direction, although it could have been one of her staffers doing this on their own.

My goals? Pray tell what are those? Or is it just the customary ad hominem when you run out of arguments?

A job interview is not a criminal case. Whether this benefits one side or another - remains to be seen. My guess is that nobody is gonna come out a clear winner out of this. Republicans can "plow right through" (excellent attack ad material right there) and risk alienating a good part of the largest demographic group of the electorate. Democrats can try stalling this as much as they can but they don't have any winning strategy if Republicans decide to stick with Kavanaugh. So it's a demolition derby basically. Who can crawl across the finish line.

None of it is a good reason to refuse to investigate these allegations though. If the accusers are lying the fallout would set a precedent for decades. Same if they're not. Both positive outcomes as far as I can see.

It's not a fact. Republicans have about 3 months remaining in the current session and very likely will maintain control of the Senate beyond that as well. They have better options than what they're currently doing. They can use the investigation to clear Kavanaugh's name. They can nominate someone else. There are no good options for Democrats, delay or no delay.

That's all assuming the allegations are false. If the allegations are true - that could benefit Democrats but without the control of the Senate there is not much they can do anyway...

What WOULD be a criminal case however is a charge of sexual assault IF SOMEONE WERE TO FILE CHARGES, but they won't because this is just a ploy and they know it is a serious crime to file false charges. The FBI has NO OBLIGATION or mandate to do ANYTHING until CHARGES ARE FILED. Your right, those bastard Republicans thinking they can get voted in and then make decisions about our government as if they were elected to represent their constituents. WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?

This is yet another attempt in an endless stream of attempts to reverse the 2016 election results. Trump won, that means he gets to pick, and Republicans have the majority. If you don't like that, get over it. Or for that matter stop driving the voter base to the right by supporting sick, transparent schemes like this putting real sexual assault victims into question over their claims because it has been abused so much as a ploy.

"When Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, offered his guidance about the court pick to Mr. Trump last week, he cautioned the president that the sheer volume of Judge Kavanaugh’s paperwork from a career in law and politics could hand Democrats the chance to stall a vote.

That could mean that Judge Kavanaugh would not be seated by the time the next court session begins in October and, if controversial matters arise from his background, perhaps even push a vote until after the November elections. And that is not what Mr. McConnell, who because of Senator John McCain’s absence has just 50 Senate Republicans available, would prefer."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/supreme-court-elections.html

Hardly a right wing rag. This is a last ditch attempt at delaying confirmation in the hopes that it can help them win the midterms, and then try to impeach Trump before he can seat any more judges.

I will gladly accept the label of "conspiracy theorist" because I believe that it is a term used for those that actually think for themselves instead of being...

....
Republicans can vote to confirm Kavanaugh tomorrow, or during the lame duck session, there is nothing to stop them. If they're worried that they don't have enough votes in their own party - that's hardly the fault of Democrats. Perhaps the problem is not the best and brightest nominee. ....

The FBI can do a background investigation without a criminal case.

Is that again one of those things where you're saying "you" but it's not directed at me? But just in case it is - you're delusional if you think me posting my opinion on a Bitcoin forum is going to drive the voter base one way or another. Get over people having different opinions.

Old news from long before these allegations. McCain has already been replaced, so that's irrelevant. "if controversial matters arise from his background" is exactly why an investigation is needed unless you're saying that a person of questionable integrity on the SCOTUS is acceptable.

Republicans can vote to confirm Kavanaugh tomorrow, or during the lame duck session, there is nothing to stop them. If they're worried that they don't have enough votes in their own party - that's hardly the fault of Democrats. Perhaps the problem is not the best and brightest nominee. I don't remember much drama with Gorsuch's nomination.

....

None of this gibbering changes the time line, or the motivation for the Democrats. His integrity is only "in question" to the left because they are desperate.

Yeah, and the FBI can also not interfere in the confirmation process because they have no criminal complaints or evidence presented to them. This is quite prudent due to the COMPLETE LACK OF EVIDENCE and the REFUSAL of the "victims" to FILE CRIMINAL CHARGES. You don't get to just demand the FBI investigate what you please or else you are going to hold the judicial process hostage.

Lol get over people having different opinions. THAT IS HILARIOUS coming from some one on the left. You might wanna tell your lefty brethren that rather than me. I have no issue with opposing opinions. I do however have an issue with the hijacking of the judicial process using false accusations of sexual assault over and over creating questions and doubt when ACTUAL VICTIMS report sexual assault. This is a disgusting ploy that is going to cost Democrats dearly and is a sign of extreme desperation. As usual the left doesn't give a fuck about the "minorities" they claim to represent, rather they are just a useful tool to exploit and hide behind. Also, yes it was a general "you", but also includes you individually.

None of this gibbering changes the time line, or the motivation for the Democrats. His integrity is only "in question" to the left because they are desperate.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that the Democratic Party has been bought and paid for by international interests not in the best interest of the USA.

I can't demand it. The President can and it has been done before.

I'm not a "lefty", whatever that means, but thank you for your totally non-ad-hominem attempt to paint me into a political group that you dislike just because I disagree with you.

It's not an unusual expectation to investigate allegations against someone nominated for a lifetime appointment. Lifetime. What's the rush? None of the midterms-delay-benefit cockamamie matters, particularly if the allegations are false, which would backfire badly for Democrats. On the other hand, there is virtually no losing strategy for Republicans but they're doing everything they can to create one. If they "plow through this" and lose the Senate afterwards I would laugh my non-lefty ass off. That would be totally self-inflicted (the loss, not the laugh).

The Democrats ARE ALREADY LOSING. People are fleeing the left en mass due to their increasingly insane and divisive behavior. This is a desperate attempt at clawing back control of congress so they can attempt an impeachment. Convenient that "the delay doesn't matter". I am sure it "doesn't matter" because you are so neutral right? xD

I never said I'm neutral but please keep trying.

If (1) the Democrats are losing and (2) Kavanaugh's accusers are lying - why wouldn't Republicans want to maximize their advantage in this situation? Conduct a proper FBI investigation, expose the lies, energize the base.

If the accusations are true it still seems like an opportunity for Republicans. Conduct a proper FBI investigation, oops the guy was a boozer frat boy, let's pick another Federalist judge, energize the base.

The delay is moot anyway. The investigation could have started last week, it could still start today, and can be completed fairly quickly. With or without the investigation the confirmation vote can be held at any time. It's just a matter of how certain Senate Republicans are of #1 and #2 and it would seem that they're less certain than you are. Do they know something you don't?

You may believe the delay is moot but the Democrats are trying very hard to orchestrate delays. Over and over.

You could be right about the delay being moot. Won't be the first time a Demo political strategy backfired. Maybe they believe their own fake polling?

Trump has called the Dem's actions "a con game."

I tend to agree.

but it's the only shot they got.

If you're in a boxing match and realize you are about to be bettered by your opponent, and the only chance you have is to punch him in the balls, do you take it?

Depends. Does the winner get to make the rules, including whether a ball punch is legal? I believe that's the calculation here if I'm getting your analogy right.

I think the analogy is more trying to determine if you are willing to act ethically and fairly when you are about to lose.

Your response answers that question.

Americans are going overboard on this Kavanaugh thing.  Do we not think that it is pointless bringing a school boy error after over 30yrs to hunt a grown man because he seeks a public position? Is there no one here who was never caught up with youth exuberance let them cast the first stone.

Jesus what a sad comment.

IF it turns out the allegations are true what a sad state the USA is in when the bar for youthful exuberance is set as low as attempted rape.  I assure you there are millions of men who have never tried to forcefully take a womens clothes off while covering her mouth so she can't scream, me being one of them.

The above is completely aside from the fact that it's a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, surely they could find a guy with great moral fortitude.

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed.

For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy.  You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly.  That's stupid as fuck

When has he lied under oath?

Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.

They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.

The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.

“Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Sept. 13.
(...)

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted by documents from his time as a counsel to the president and staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Newly released documents have undermined Kavanaugh’s declarations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, contradictions that are drawing close scrutiny from many Democrats. Kavanaugh has denied making any misleading or false statements.

His role in accessing stolen documents: In 2002, a GOP aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents belonging to the committee’s Democratic staff. At the time, Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer working on judicial nominations, which included working alongside Miranda. In 2003, President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to his current position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and his confirmation hearing was held in 2004—though he was not confirmed until two years later. During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents.

But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.
(...)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/)

I am fairly confident those senators know that is about as a BS of a charge as the charges made by the women from CA and the women from Yale.

....

But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.
(...)

A judge making about 200k was able to pay a 92k country club membership joining fee and put a cash down payment (that exceeded his ENTIRE STATED NET WORTH) on a house worth over a million dollars. His name is Brett Kavanaugh. And he was shady AF before anyone knew about Ford.

https://twitter.com/Tennesseine/status/1044285228376821762 (https://twitter.com/Tennesseine/status/1044285228376821762)

....
They literally quoted a Senator... so... you really can't say that "senators know that is about as BS of a charge"... because that's contradicted by the quote you quoted (and apparently didn't bother reading)

The Wall Street journal is reporting that the creepy porn lawyer has released an affidavit in which someone who hold a security clearance claims she was drugged in a party in 1982 in which Kavanaugh was in attendance.

Based upon the fact she hired the creepy porn lawyer, I am unwilling to give her any credibility at this time.

....
How about a link in addition to your opinion:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-kavanaugh-accuser-says-he-was-present-when-she-was-gang-raped

Here is the other thing that stands out to me - aside from not wanting an FBI investigation - why did Kavanaugh set the bar so impossibly high by not only denying the allegations but also by denying underage drinking and even having sex? That contradicts some known facts, including what his friends and supporters are saying about that time in high school and college. ....

How about a link that doesn't try to download malware through a fake "flash update?"

I realize it's the site and not you, just saying ....

When Trump pulls the nomination (or Kavanaugh withdraws) the republicans and trump himself might just start to poll better something they need right now!

"I barely knew that Bart dude, he was just loitering around the White House for a couple of months and appeared on Fox News only once - how was I supposed to know he's a creep? Never touched me inappropriately."

Seriously though, McConnell is insisting they'll vote in the committee immediately regardless of hearing results. That's either very confident or very stupid.

Sorry, it's a shitty site but it's never done anything of the sort to me. Try this: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=651797758

....

Some times folks have trouble admitting when they're wrong! ...

The women from CA just testified that she traveled to DC via airplane, that she traveled to DE via airplane last summer, and that has traveled via airplane many times, often to get to vacations, and for business purposes.

This directly contradicts with her claimed fear of flying, and with her reasons to not be able to testify on Monday, as she claimed to be afraid of flying.

She also testified that she did not submit to interviews with Senate staffers because she did not want to fly, and that she was hoping the staffers would come to her location, however this directly conflicts with Senator Grassley's staffers offering to go to her location to interview her.

Being afraid of something is not the same as being completely unable to do it. She got to DC, she's testifying under oath (something you didn't expect her to do).

Her legal team was lying about the reasons why she cannot testify on Monday, and why she could not submit to interviews with Senate investigators.

Unless you can somehow prove that she's not afraid of flying it's a bit bold to call it a "lie".

You're pissed about a date change from Monday to Thursday but you don't think that an allegation of attempted rape warrants an additional background investigation. Come on, there is a serious subject being discussed, not some procedural squabble.

Actually it's both things being discussed.

This can't be said enough. And so saying it again. The Senate is doing as thorough if not more thorough an investigation than the FBI would/could. It is talking to same people, getting same evidence. Anybody calling for FBI investigation is doing so purely for delay.

.... if there is no conclusive proof against Kavanaugh; I don't see any reason why he shud be withheld on his nomination.

Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953.

Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895).

...they are constantly questioning the fact that Mark Judge hasn't been subpeonaed...

If Mike Judge produced a sworn affidavit stating they have no knowledge of the supposed events at all, it's hard to see what more would be had by requiring his attendance.

Wait, I forgot. Another delay,,,

He could have arrived today like everyone else so no delay would have been needed. There are certainly questions that can be asked beyond his knowledge of the specific party. He's written books that seem to contradict what Kavanaugh has said.

The real problem is that he would likely be a bad witness for Kavanaugh so the Republicans don't want him there.

Realistically the minimum cost including attorneys (required) to go to something like that is probably 10k.

I suppose other-side could ask him about drunken nights in high school, stuff unrelated to the Ford issue.

Meanwhile, it's Kavanaugh's turn and he's fighting mad.

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-fights-back-opening-statement/

I was listening to NPR today on t he ride home. They interrupted the normal BBC world series with this dude's testimony.

I find it hard to believe that a football player drinking beer didn't have any sexual contact with anyone until many years after highschool....

.... No reasonable innocent person with direct access to the POTUS and the FBI at the snap of a finger would not call for an immediate FULL FBI investigation.

You right wing nut jobs want to talk about not being reasonable to come out after 36 years how about not demanding your name be fucking cleared by the premiere investigative agency in the country...

You know if the FBI investigated the claims and found them completely false ....

Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!

Meanwhile, it's Kavanaugh's turn and he's fighting mad.

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-fights-back-opening-statement/

Meanwhile, it's Kavanaugh's turn and he's fighting mad.

https://www.redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-fights-back-opening-statement/

In my opinion, this will set precedent for future nominations, he claimed character asasination against him as the accusations against him can not be proved, which is the case. The whole argument is based  on hearsay of events of decades ago.
In my opinion it is totally unfair to the man. Because no matter what happens there is no way he will get out of this unscathed.

... the woman could have spoken out about this a long time ago than wait for this time to come out.

According to a NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll taken last week, 48% of white evangelical Christians say that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court even if the charge of sexual assault is true.

I repeat: Nearly half of white evangelicals want Kavanaugh on the Court even if they believe he attempted to rape a girl when he was younger. Only 36% of them said it would be a dealbreaker while 16% were unsure. As if his guilt would still present some doubt as to whether he deserves a promotion.

If that doesn’t tell you the depths of their moral depravity, I don’t know what does.

(Incidentally, 54% of Republicans said they would vote to confirm Kavanaugh even if he sexually assaulted her. No other sub-group had numbers as high as Republicans and white evangelicals.)

Sad... quite sad

...

There is a bit of danger though. 54% is quite low, callous as it may sound. Might give some of those undecided Republican senators a pause. And the poll was done before yesterday's hearing, in which Kavanaugh (1) pandered to the base, but also (2) sounded... unsteady I think is the word.

Trump: Kavanaugh accusations are a con job!

I think an endorsement of a self-proclaimed pussy grabber is the last thing Kavanaugh needs right now :)....

A certified pussy-grabber's opinion that Kav is not a pussy-grabber doesn't count?

The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted along party lines, 11-10, to send federal judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination to the the full chamber for a final confirmation vote, less than one full day after a series of dramatic hearings in which a California professor accused the jurist of sexually assaulting her while both were in high school.

I was disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. He's the kind of person who Romney or Bush would've picked: similar to John Roberts. So his basic philosophy will be to allow burning the constitution just so long as it's a slow burn. Gorsuch on the other hand is a very strict constitutionalist, and was a truly excellent pick -- his selection proved that Trump can on occasion be better than the typical centrist Republicans and Democrats who we've been afflicted with for decades.

I expect Kavanaugh to make it through the Senate unless some major scandal is revealed. On the Republican side, probably even Rand Paul will find it politically impossible to vote against him unless he's already destined to lose, and a few democrats will likely also be pressured to vote for him (though their votes will be unnecessary).

What do you think?

I'm a Libertarian, thus my love for decentralization and cryptos, I am with you on Kavanaugh BUT after watching the brutal and vile process the Dems put this man through, I'm going to ditch voting for Libertarians this election cycle and vote Republican.  Sick and tired of the drama, the media and their siding with Democrats is so freaking obvious and it makes me puke.  Perhaps the day will come when Republicans will agree to meet Libertarians in the middle on many issues (not all), many of us Libertarians will start supporting the Republican party.

BOOM, FBI investigation incoming!

Statement from President @realDonaldTrump:
“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

So... after all this whining about delays it turns out that the objection to the FBI investigation was totally pointless.

I've also been feeling that way on an intuitive level. I don't like the Republicans, but I can't stand the Democrats. A decade ago they used to at least pay lip service to a few good things like opposition to war and some individual freedoms. I actually became a libertarian from the left. But now they're very pro-war and maybe as bad on free speech etc. as the Republicans due to their focus on identity politics. However, I have to keep reminding myself that the Republicans will do plenty of harm if they gain a lot of power, and in fact it may be an improvement if the Democrats get the House (but not the Senate) in the upcoming election because it'll make it harder for anything at all to get done. Even though it'll be absolute hell to have to listen to a Democratic Speaker for 2+ years...

If the Democrats gain both the House and the Senate in the upcoming election, then I'm calling it right now: Trump will get so amazingly frustrated that he will do something massively stupid/illegal and end up getting impeached (via the support of many Republicans). I'm not sure whether this would be good from a libertarian perspective.

Kavanaugh is better than anyone who a Democrat would nominate, so that's one good thing, though it's still disappointing. I don't even really trust him on the 2^nd amendment -- probably he would support all sorts of incremental regulations. Though maybe his experience with his nomination will make him more radical, which might be interesting.

Durbin had Kavanaugh looking like the classic deer in the headlights (and it's a train called the FBI headed straight for Kavanaugh full speed) fucking funny to watch this liar squirm in anguish over his lies!

A certified pussy-grabber's opinion that Kav is not a pussy-grabber doesn't count?

Overall it sounded to me like the White House told him to make that aggressive opening statement but didn't really prep him for the inevitable grilling.

Oh my dear God.
You know what.
Do you realize that the whole world is watching?
I do realize that Russian Duma and Ukrainian Rada look stupid very often.
But they are not as consumed with pussy matters (apart from infamous Pussy Riot) as your discussion of who will defend the Constitution.

FBI investigating sexual matters of 35 years ago is like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBKhSS doing the same.
Department Against Misappropriation of Socialist Property was de-facto ideological police which prevented any dissident activity
by putting strong controls on economic streams; it was holding the weak regime together.
If it were after pussies, USSR would disintegrate in the 1960-ies.

Foreign affairs minister of Russia:
http://magspace.ru/blog/humor/297248.html

Indeed, the Democratic Party of the US lurches farther in the direction of Stalinesque with each passing year.

Indeed, the Democratic Party of the US lurches farther in the direction of Stalinesque with each passing year.

If the Democrats gain both the House and the Senate in the upcoming election, then I'm calling it right now: Trump will get so amazingly frustrated that he will do something massively stupid/illegal and end up getting impeached (via the support of many Republicans).

The best-case scenario IMO is that we quickly get solid evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty, and then he's replaced [Amy Coney Barrett] who is then confirmed before the Democrats have any possibility of taking back the Senate.

I know right looking for the actual facts and truth

Senate Democrat staffers refused to participate in investigations of any of the allegations, and refused to participate in the interviewing of any of the witnesses.  

And yet they and the victims were calling for the premier federal investigative bureau to look into the matter.

I know right looking for the actual facts and truth about a guy seeking a lifetime appointment for the highest court in the land is so fucking stalinesque.  I mean whats next from the Democrats a president for life?  Oh wait that was Trump the republican that wanted that!

I also found out that the chineese love trump because of his big brain lol oh my god the entire world is laughing at this retard literally laugh at him at the UN, what a joke the US has become!  The Russians are laughing the hardest as they managed to influence an American election.

What information do you think the FBI can uncover that Senate staffers would be unable to uncover?

No, only our corrupt media used to be (I don't follow them anymore) laughing at Trump, showing him on the background of atomic explosion, soon after inauguration.

Well for one they will actually talk to more than just the 2 people in the hearing like duh obviously, something the republicans refused to do ffs seriously if you think some partisan senate staffers are better than the FBI than ok cool.

The Senate Republican investigators have already spoken to the same people that the FBI will speak to, and have already obtained the same information. The only reason Senate democrat investigators are not named is because they refused to participate, hence they are not interested in the truth.

Bullshit, what a ridiculous assumption.  The FBI is a non partisan premier federal agency with thousands of field agents what a stupid assumption to think the senate partisan clowns gather all relevant information.  Your leaps of logic are astounding and agenda driven but ok cool.

Judge is in hiding what are the questions the partisan investigators asked asked, I can assure you that the FBI will ask more questions than the partisan republican investigators.

None of the Democrats asked Ford any substantial question that would assess the credibility of her or what she is saying, and they for the most part were questioning Kavanaugh about things like his yearbook and drinking habits, in attempts to further smear him, and his friends from High School.

( conspiracy theory skipped )

Digging into one person's past would be "assessing credibility", but digging into another person's past is "smear"? Republicans didn't ask Ford any questions at all choosing instead to delegate to Rachel Mitchell, but they pushed Mitchell aside when she started digging into Kavanaugh's calendar.

The Senate Republican investigators have already spoken to the same people that the FBI will speak to, and have already obtained the same information.

Bullshit, what a ridiculous assumption.  The FBI is a non partisan premier federal agency....

FBI Departures:

Are we just listing folks that no longer work there for some random reason....

....
Some how the FBI isn't qualified to do investigations, holy shit you right wing nut jobs have to change arguments so often how do you keep them all straight!

Funny how the left has been calling for one thing and one thing only the entire time, an FBI investigation....

The left has not been calling for one thing only. They want to delay the confirmation, on the gamble that senate and congress ratios change. That's all it's about.

The people I have known in the FBI are pretty outstanding.

There's a corollary to Occim's razor. Make the hypothesis as simple as possible, but no simpler than the facts actually demand.

You can't ignore the hyper politicized environment. It is what it is.

Well, that's what the FBI is supposed to do - facts.

NO FACTS FOR YOU

Well, that's what the FBI is supposed to do - facts.

If Democrats were gambling - Republicans could (and should) have called their bluff long ago and saved themselves some time. There was no point delaying the FBI investigation. But even in the worst case they still have 3 months. It would take a series of monumental fuckups for Republicans to lose that SCOTUS seat.

There is no such thing as "monumental fuckups." There is nothing here except attempts to create delay both by public smear campaign and by legal maneuvers.

There is no "if" to "Democrats gambling." Of course they are. They hope to win majority in the House and have certain strategies predicated upon that outcome.

There is no merit to what the FBI is "supposed to do."

There is nothing here except attempts to create delay both by public smear campaign and by legal maneuvers.

The reopened FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is “a blessing in disguise,” President Trump said Saturday – insisting he is not contemplating a replacement for his embattled would-be associate justice.

“I don’t need a backup plan,” Trump said. “I think he’s going to be fine.”

“Having the FBI go out and do a thorough investigation, whether it’s three days or seven days, I think it’s going to be less than a week… I actually think it will be a blessing in disguise,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House as he departed for a rally in West Virginia. “It will be a good thing.”

The left has not been calling for one thing only. They want to delay the confirmation, on the gamble that senate and congress ratios change. That's all it's about.

But even in the worst case they still have 3 months. It would take a series of monumental fuckups for Republicans to lose that SCOTUS seat.

....

At this point I still think the republicans will get their generation of conservative jurisprudence but I highly doubt it will be Kavanaugh as the Justice that makes that happen.

Y'all are screaming over losing the battle but yet still won the war.  The only thing stopping the republicans is the republicans haha.

Or you know, make sure they don't elect a rapist to the highest court in the land. I realise that's a novel concept to the right since they were quite happy to make a rapist president.

Well if Trump nominates another serial rapist and liar then its not hard to imagine them not getting a (if they lose the senate) lame duck nom through lol!

And with thus deceleration of guilt you along with much of the irrational left have entirely abandoned the presumption innocence so fundamental for society to exist as anything other then a tyranny of the powerful.

You have joined with the radicals in their preposterous belief that an accusation alone determines guilt and are willing to condemn a man on that treacherous grounds.

The Democratic Party has now announced that every straight Christian white man will be guilty until proven innocent wherever they hold power. This used to just be SJWs on campus. Now it’s their whole party.

And with thus deceleration of guilt you along with much of the irrational left have entirely abandoned the presumption innocence so fundamental for society to exist as anything other then a tyranny of the powerful.

You have joined with the radicals in their preposterous belief that an accusation alone determines guilt and are willing to condemn a man on that treacherous grounds.

The Democratic Party has now announced that every straight Christian white man will be guilty until proven innocent wherever they hold power. This used to just be SJWs on campus. Now it’s their whole party.

It's hardly Democrats' fault that Trump's preferred demographic for his appointments is "straight Christian white man"

....
They are so desperate now they are getting bad at hiding it, more people come to the realization every day, so I'd be quite surprised to be hit by any "blue wave" any time soon until the moderate left regroups itself, disavows marxism and all the dirty political tricks they pull, and then maybe some of the center left will have a chance again some day.. Until then, I'm not willing to give them an inch..

With the democrats supporting and running socialists, and smearing politics with rape accusations, I don't see them having a chance, but maybe I put too much faith in my fellow citizens..

That's what the left says until the right appoints anything else and then they are just the token black guy, queer, or woman that they are just appointing for brownie points with minorities and of course they are not a "real" black anymore, uncle toms, race traitors, gender traitors..

Their is no way to win, no matter what the left always has a way to smear it to their flock.. ....

And with thus deceleration of guilt you along with much of the irrational left have entirely abandoned the presumption innocence so fundamental for society to exist as anything other then a tyranny of the powerful.

.....
Kavanaugh is not on trial, so there is no presumption of innocence here. ....

I'm curious how and where that sort of world view came to your brain.

I don't agree with that view, at all.

~

BTW

Has anyone opened a bet on the confirmation in the gambling section ?

Wud love to see the odds.

;)

BTW

Has anyone opened a bet on the confirmation in the gambling section ?

Wud love to see the odds.

;)

...

The right is allowed to assert Kavanaugh is innocent but the left can't claim Kavanaugh is guilty or we broke the world LOL fucking hypocrites.

Congratulations to the right for trying to subvert due process by assuming every white christian male is innocent and an investigation is never required when the white christian male denies it, you have become part of the reason the world is laughing at America!

It’s not that I believe Kavanaugh is innocent. I think it is possible that he is guilty of what Ford accuses him of. But I believe he is not guilty, in the sense that there is not nearly enough evidence to judge him guilty of the accusation. Ford has nothing to support her accusation but her accusation. Kavanaugh strongly denies it, as you know, and he has offered evidence (e.g., his summer calendar) that he could not have been where he was supposed to have been. And, none of the people Ford has said could corroborate the event say they were there.

If we allow Kavanaugh’s nomination to go down on the basis of unsupported accusations, then we set a terrible precedent. We give a veto to anyone who makes an accusation against a nominee, however groundless. What strikes me is that liberals assume his guilt because he belongs to a class, and has an identity, that they despise: upper-class white male conservative. If you read commentary from liberals on social media and elsewhere, it is shocking how openly they dismiss Kavanaugh’s defense because he is white and male and “privileged” — never mind that Ford comes from and lives in the same social class. Liberals would quite rightly reject the idea that a witness deserves to be disbelieved because she is poor, black, and female. By many liberals, Kavanaugh’s race, sex, and class are held to be evidence of his guilt. This should not be all that surprising to people who have been following campus political discourse, but it seems that now liberals — elite ones, anyway, in media and politics — have turned the public square into the Oberlin campus.

What was so galvanizing to many of us yesterday, hearing Kavanaugh’s opening statement, and seeing Sen. Lindsey Graham’s passionate defense of Kavanaugh, was that this is not a man who is willing to passively accept the fate that liberals have decreed for deplorable people like him. He may yet go down, but he will not have gone down without a fight. I thought last night that maybe, just maybe, this will be a turning point, a point in which not just conservatives, but all people — even old-fashioned liberals — will stand up to this ideological madness, this bullying.
...
That’s why defending Kavanaugh is not strictly about defending Kavanaugh. It’s about fighting the mob, and defending some sort of rational process by which we discern truth and falsity, guilt and innocence. It’s about standing up to the mob — on Capitol Hill, on campuses, in newsrooms, and in elite institutions — that determine guilt based on identity. As the reader above said, this is about self-protection — not in a selfish sense, but in the (old-fashioned liberal) sense of protecting the processes that are our best chance of establishing fairness. I have sons, and I have a daughter. If any of them are ever sexually assaulted, or are accused of sexual assault, I want them to be treated fairly. I do not want my children to be privileged or un-privileged, based on the color of their skin, their sex, their social class, their religion, or anything else.

There was a time when this was the goal that most Americans aspired to

Kavanaugh is not on trial, so there is no presumption of innocence here.

Everyone liberals and conservatives, Christians and atheists, black and white are entitled to the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof always rests on the accuser as it must.

And yet the entire right has said Dr. Ford is lying, a dem plant to subvert Kavanaugh from his days as a bush staffer.  They don't believe her and fought tooth and nail to stop the actual truth from coming out.  The right is allowed to assert Kavanaugh is innocent but the left can't claim Kavanaugh is guilty or we broke the world LOL fucking hypocrites.

If your young child claimed that his sibling hit him without being provoked, you would not punish his brother without gathering some evidence to support this. If an employee claims her coworker stole money from the employer, an employer would not fire said employee without verifying evidence a theft actually occurred and that the employee is responsible. If someone claims your significant other is cheating on you, then you would not end the relationship without some form of corroboration and/or admission of guilt. If you claim you are the owner of a specific bank account, a bank employee will not allow you to withdraw funds from said account without verifying this is true.

You know what helps gather evidence of these wrong doings after the allegation by the victims are asserted?

AN INVESTIGATION LOL

Finally something you have written that makes sense, so why no investigation to gather evidence in this case then!

This statement shows how much of a bad person you are

If your young child claimed that his sibling hit him without being provoked, you would not punish his brother without gathering some evidence to support this. If an employee claims her coworker stole money from the employer, an employer would not fire said employee without verifying evidence a theft actually occurred and that the employee is responsible. If someone claims your significant other is cheating on you, then you would not end the relationship without some form of corroboration and/or admission of guilt.

Sen. Tom Cotton said Sunday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office will be investigated to determine whether or not they leaked the confidential letter from Christine Blasey Ford that detailed allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

blah blah anything to avoid the FBI investigating the matter blah blah blah

....
There is evidence that Ford is lying, for one the fact that her story has changed over time, and secondly that all of the people she claims were at the gathering she was alleged assaulted at, say that no such gathering ever happened. 

....It is too bad that Senate staffers have already investigated all of the allegations, as has the media, both of which have been unable to verify any of the underlying facts, in other words, they have found the accusations to be baseless.  Senate democrat staffers have not participated in said investigations, despite being invited to do so, because Democrats do not care about the truth.

This FBI investigation, they have already investigate Kav multiple times, now they are investigating this accusation, hopefully investigating the accusers and their co-conspirators, their might be something to find..

Finally someone from the right is making sense if this is a dem conspiracy you should be demanding the FBI investigate this so you can provide evidence of the plot or at the very least clear this poor innocent man and spare his family the humiliation...

And yet you wouldn't allow an investigation for the facts to be gathered because he denies it.  The same people that are entitled to the presumption of innocence are also entitled to due process...  

How is anyone supposed to objectively asses any statements for truth if an investigation is suppressed because he said it didn't happen.

....
The Senate has requested a supplemental FBI investigation to help them in their decision making and that is underway.

The four people named by Ford have already produced sworn statements that they were not there, that the party did not happen, blah-blah-blah. They cannot change those statements without being under penalty of perjury.

Technically they can. The statements were mostly along the lines of "I don't remember". They can start remembering and that not necessarily perjury. Or for example if the FBI uncovers more specific details such as the date/location/etc and asks more specific questions then witnesses can provide more specific answers without contradicting their previous statements made about a more vague allegation.

Good luck with that!

You must be crazy because if I remember correctly the right wing nut jobs in here told us the FBI DOES NOT GET INVOLVED BECAUSE NO CRIME... Where are they now haha.

The FBI along with pretty much every branch of law enforcement has policies against just starting investigations because people demand it, a criminal complaint is required.

...
BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

Geez, we could use them for all kinds of things.

Let's have them figure out if Elizabeth Warren is really an Indian like she says she is?

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

Do you always blame a scape-goat, or only on bitcointalk?

re: False Equivalence Fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)

I think people may not understand the limits of "an FBI investigation" in this case. The FBI cannot issue subpoenas, the Senate committee can. The FBI cannot compel people to testify. Without subpoena power, the FBI cannot get phone records, email records or bank records.

The four people named by Ford have already produced sworn statements that they were not there, that the party did not happen, blah-blah-blah. They cannot change those statements without being under penalty of perjury.

The bet that should be made at this junction is whether one of the major Democratic operatives, such as Creepy Porn Lawyer, comes up with yet another delaying tactic at the last hour of the last day of the FBI investigation. You know they will.

A lot of people blindly worship the three letter agencies  FBI, CIA, NSA. When the FBI investigation finds no evidence supporting the accusations as is highly likely it will help wake some of the half asleep people.

It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

However the far left is not a particularly logical entirely and as a whole more motivated by identity politics and feelings. Traditional liberals who historically valued individual freedoms are marginalised and hold no power in today's left. Indeed liberalism today increasingly has more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism.

No matter what happens now Kavanaugh is going be be thought of as a dangerous rapist by a third of the country. USA today ran an article saying he was too dangerous to be allowed to coach his daughters basketball team. Nevertheless going through this week long FBI investigation will allow him to clear his name as much as is possible without allowing this tactic of last second uncorroborated allegation derail his nomination.

It's smart politics and probably the best possible response to this circus.

I won't take you up on that bet, however, as another attempt at delay after the FBI investigation is done seems almost a given at this point. However, that will be the time to vote which is what I expect the Senate will do.

It was not particularly logical to outsource this investigation to the FBI as you note. It is really is the Senate's job and they have the power to compel testimony under oath.

....

I won't take you up on that bet, however, as another attempt at delay after the FBI investigation is done seems almost a given at this point....

Has the Senate actually subpoenaed anyone with regards to Kavanaugh? Subpoenas can't be issued by the minority so they're unlikely to be of much use when there is no bipartisan agreement as to the scope of the investigation.

What a shame it is that the FBI is not able to do some kind of investigation into a persons background who's applying for a sensitive federal job.

Maybe one day the American people will wise up and mandate the FBI take on this role because with out alleging a crime the FBI would never be able to find out if a federal employee was say a commy or terrorist in hiding.  Come to think of it there must be some high level operatives from bad actors in some very high government positions since they couldn't have had their backgrounds investigated without someone alleging a crime.  Damn you guys better get on that shit before it gets out of hand...

BTW your President ORDERED the FBI to do a supplemental background check (investigation) on this nom, just like many Presidents have done many times in the past because new information...

Kavanaugh logic

... nonsense ....

I've known a LOT of people who "drank too much," and "blackouts" are very uncommon.

What about that perjury?....

How about that Russia collusion?

I'm getting pretty sick of all this nonsense.

Literally direct evidence of a violation of federal law by lying under oath.

Yet you refuse to accept it as evidence. ._.

No, I refuse to accept your bogus repeating of fake news.

Look at this nonsense. First sexual assault, then gang rape, then the rape at the boat party, then after all that dissolves ..... He threw some ice at a guy in a bar.

But regardless, it won't work. My prediction is the Senate is going to vote in very short order and will confirm the guy. And the ordinary Americans are going to be pretty angry about this entire thing, and they will show that anger in the mid terms.

Are you curious why Trump got elected?

It was exactly this sort of stuff that people are totally sick of.

In one of his earliest opinions, Jane Doe v. DC, 489 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Judge Kavanaugh overruled U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy’s preliminary injunction, 374 F.Supp.2d 107 (D.D.C. 2005) and later summary judgment and permanent injunction, 232 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) and said that even when a severely intellectually disabled person expresses that they do not want an unnecessary elective surgery, the government can still impose that surgery against their wishes without violating constitutional or statutory rights.

Brian Hundley was a 41-year old graduate of Howard University School of Dentistry studying for his boards. He was sitting in his car, unarmed, when a 6’3”, 204-pound off- duty police officer in street clothes ordered him to get out, and in short order shot and killed him with his 9mm Glock. The officer said he shot Brian because he moved his hand behind his back, but the jury specifically rejected that story in a special interrogatory verdict, and found for Brian’s surviving loved ones. In Hundley v. DC, 494 F.3d 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007), however, Judge Kavanaugh overruled the jury and found for the officer. The opinion describes the facts from the officer’s point of view, id., despite the jury rejecting the officer’s story. As we have already been taught as 1Ls, in a situation like this, the judge is supposed to be deferential to the jury and state the facts in a light favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. But this early opinion was just one of Judge Kavanaugh’s regular departures from federal rules and constitutional standards.

Seventeen-year old Antonio Hester was sentenced to a maximum of ten years in prison as a minor. He had a learning disability, and DC public schools, which had been providing him special education for years, promised to continue to provide those services while he was incarcerated in Maryland, or, if they were not allowed into the prison, to provide compensatory services after his release. The Maryland prison did prevent DC from entering to provide Antonio with services, however, and DC then refused to provide services after release. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held that DC had backed out of a consent decree and ordered the school district to provide Antonio with compensatory services. 433 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006). Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, however, and not only reversed summary judgment but – glossing over a factual dispute he had with the district court (not the job of an appellate judge) and Judge Kessler’s legal analysis – directed judgment against Antonio, erasing any chance of educational relief. Hester v. DC, 505 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Judge Kavanaugh is no friend to liberty. In U.S. v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Kavanaugh justified ordering a person out of his car, detaining him, and searching his crotch area and under his pants by saying that the police had a “reasonable suspicion” that the car was stolen because the person “could not produce registration and could not name the car's owner,” 510 F.3d at 345–46. But the arrestee had given the car owner’s first name and his own driver’s license, and the police had confirmed that the driver’s license was clean and the car had never been reported missing or stolen. Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion upheld the arrestee’s 12-year prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine. Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules for the government in search-and-seizure. U.S. v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry into house & a later search warrant lacking probable cause), U.S. v. Washington, 559 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (giving deference to “aggressive traffic patrols” in “high crime areas”), U.S. v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (permitting search of home), U.S. v. Askew, 529 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (dissenting from en banc opinion) (allowing police officers to partially unzip man’s jacket without consent after a pat down and later, after man was not identified by witness, to fully unzip the jacket).

When Judge Kavanaugh has ruled for a criminal defendant on a point of law, he has specifically noted that it made little to no material difference in the outcome for the defendant. U.S. v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358, 361 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“The vacatur and remand of the felon-in-possession count does not affect Smith's term of imprisonment”). Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1257, 1257 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012), overruled by Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Hamdan was transferred in late 2008 to Yemen and then released there . . . . Our judgment would not preclude detention of Hamdan until the end of U.S. hostilities against al Qaeda[,] [n]or . . . any future military commission charges against Hamdan. . . [,] [n]or . . . appropriate criminal charges in civilian court.”); US v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction . . . . two of the defendants . . . are entitled to vacatur . . . and to resentencing under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. . . The [life] sentence of the remaining defendant . . . is affirmed. We also remand for . . . technical corrections . . . .”); US v. Williams, 784 F.3d 798, 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgment of the District Court except that, consistent with this Court's ordinary practice in these circumstances, we remand the case so that the District Court may address Williams's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance.”); US v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129, 1133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“In 2013, after the termination of her supervised release, Nwoye filed a motion to vacate her conviction . . . [w]e reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.”) (note that this case has been upheld as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh’s sympathy for criminal defendants and women; it should be noted that Judge Tatel had already dissented from the court’s affirmance of the conviction years earlier, 663 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and Judge Kavanaugh’s ruling happened after the defendant had completed her sentence – and he nonetheless said the case was “close.”); US v. Burnett, 827 F.3d 1108, 1112 (D.C. Cir.) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence in all respects, except that we vacate Burnett’s sentence and remand for the District Court to resentence Burnett.”);

In U.S. v. Lathern, 488 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh allowed the exclusion of exculpatory testimony from a defendant’s witness and expert witness in upholding an 8-year /97-month prison sentence. Other rulings in favor of long sentences include US v. Franklin, 663 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (life sentence); U.S. v. Duvall, 705 F.3d 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ruling against retroactive correction of crack cocaine disparity); U.S. v. Wright, 745 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ruling against defendant in case alleging attorney conflict of interest); U.S. v. Haight, 892 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (reversing a 12 year, 8 month sentence and vacating because it should be at least a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence); U.S. v. Knight, 824 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (rejecting speedy trial act and due process claims and a number of challenges to sentences).

By way of contrast: When Carlos Gustavo Gardellini filed a false federal tax return and illegally used offshore accounts, the federal guidelines called for a 10- to 16-month prison sentence. But Judge Kavanaugh, U.S. v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008), upheld a no-prison-time sentence with five years of probation in Belgium for this white collar criminal with his wife and child, and none of the normal probation conditions or restrictions. Judge Williams dissented. In U.S. v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh held that it was permissible for the district court to consider alleged conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in calculating a criminal sentence using the factors in the sentencing guidelines.

In Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011), Judge Kavanaugh held that American citizens have no Constitutional habeas corpus or due process rights to judicial review of whether they are likely to be tortured if they are transferred from U.S. to (in this case) Iraqi custody.

In Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh ruled that CIA employees who tortured and killed Guatemalans could not be held accountable in US courts for their violations of international and US law.

Over a dissent, in Jackson v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh threw out a black prison guard’s claim of discrimination, not even allowing it to go to trial, where the guard had shown evidence that he scored 98 out of 100 on qualification exams and that the prison kept positions open for years and had never hired an African American at the level of job he was seeking.

He consistently ruled for the government in FOIA cases against government transparency. Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Sack v. DOD, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

Against free speech when it applies to workers: In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Kavanaugh denied NLRB’s cross-application to enforce its order for the company to permit employees working in public to wear union shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of (Company)” on the back.

He has shown a comparatively huge amount of concern for trivial or corporate rights, e.g., finding the CFPB unconstitutional, PHH Corporation v. CFPB, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), or FAA regulations against flying model airplanes near D.C. monuments unlawful. Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

....
Now, you bash this as fake news, but in reality, it's not. There's actual evidence from multiple independent sources that say this guy lied under oath.

Also, let's put something he said to the smell test;

"I'm was a football captain"

"I went to parties and got drunk in highschool"

"I never had sexual contact with anyone during highschool or for several years after highschool".

So, a partying, drinking, highschool football captain never got laid during highschool? I'd call absolute bollocks on that fact alone. Dude has no right to lie to the American public about this shit.....

Brett lied about too many things... he has proven himself to be a compulsive liar... no wonder Trump loves him


Beach Week Ralph Club Biggest Contributor: "I'm known to have a weak stomach... catsup on spaghetti..."
Have You Boofed Yet?: "flatulence"
Renate Alumni Club: "she was just a friend"
Devil's Triangle:  "a drinking game"
FFFFFFFourth of July: "my friend stutters"


Sure man... sure...

Who lies about such silly nonsense anyway?  Why not just be honest that you liked to drink and have sex?

Brett lied about too many things... he has proven himself to be a compulsive liar... no wonder Trump loves him


Beach Week Ralph Club Biggest Contributor: "I'm known to have a weak stomach... catsup on spaghetti..."
Have You Boofed Yet?: "flatulence"
Renate Alumni Club: "she was just a friend"
Devil's Triangle:  "a drinking game"
FFFFFFFourth of July: "my friend stutters"


Sure man... sure...

Who lies about such silly nonsense anyway?  Why not just be honest that you liked to drink and have sex?

Brett lied about too many things... he has proven himself to be a compulsive liar... no wonder Trump loves him


Beach Week Ralph Club Biggest Contributor: "I'm known to have a weak stomach... catsup on spaghetti..."
Have You Boofed Yet?: "flatulence"
Renate Alumni Club: "she was just a friend"
Devil's Triangle:  "a drinking game"
FFFFFFFourth of July: "my friend stutters"


Sure man... sure...

Who lies about such silly nonsense anyway?  Why not just be honest that you liked to drink and have sex?

I don't think there is any public evidence that shows any of this is a lie. What you say is nothing more than speculation.

Anyone is welcome to cough up their 1982 calendar and their yearbooks and refute him. But nobody is doing that.

There shouldn't be any need for speculation. Doesn't matter anyway. We're going to see pretty quickly whether the guy gets confirmed or not.

And then we're going to see whether the bigger motivator of the base voters is the smears and lies of the lying liars bringing out to vote outraged Democrats who got cheated once again of what they think they deserved...

Or outraged Republicans and independents sick and tired of this juvenile horseshit.

Where's that Russian Collusion?

...
https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-timeline
....

........
There's been multiple reports from individuals (and sworn testimony) that says Brett perjured himself. .....

I checked your "collusion-timeline" link and didn't see any collusion.



There's a prosecutorial tactic that's summarized as Trapping a person into Process Violations.

It doesn't matter who it is or what it is, you get them under oath answering questions, and with a bit of skill at how the questions are phrased pretty soon you have CRIMES!

That's what happened with Flynn. That's why Trump doesn't want to talk with Mueller. That's .... what you are talking about here.

This is different from guilt or innocence on the matter for which the person was brought in and put under oath, eg for Kavanaugh  various Rape Smears.

I am really not interested in process nonsense. Now you can call that stupid if you want, but that's actually my opinion on it. Anyway I hear there's a new charge on Kavanaugh that should be vigorously investigated.

During college one night ....

HE THREW ICE AT SOMEONE!

I am really not interested in process nonsense.

Wow. Due process isn't your interest? Just supreme and totalitarian control? Sounds pretty fascist bypassing the checks and balances this nation was founded on.

Maybe you should read up on the constitution before you continue posting here...

http://constitutionus.com/

inb4 "Constitution is fake news"

Wasn't the prosecutors GOP appointed? Why did he lie to congress / senate? If he answered truthfully and honestly, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Overall, the shitbag nominee is a shitbag.

It MIGHT BE TRUE that what I'm saying is I'm giving you this one. I'm allowing you the possibility that "Have you BOOFED yet? 'Flatulence.' " ....

Might be a BALD FACED LIE. And (whisper-whisper) it was really about was whether he'd engaged in sexual act XYZ.

However what are the CONSEQUENCES of my giving you that one. Suppose the consequence was for you (or other Democrats) to continue arguing an insanely  ridiculous and silly point. Suppose the consequence was to make you/them look totally stupid.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a total fool of himself."

....
Not to mention those cases I highlighted the other day. Kinda tells me he's a corrupt, shit tier judge. I think we need to open a few more investigations into this guy just based on those cases alone.

Brett lied about too many things... he has proven himself to be a compulsive liar... no wonder Trump loves him


Beach Week Ralph Club Biggest Contributor: "I'm known to have a weak stomach... catsup on spaghetti..."
Have You Boofed Yet?: "flatulence"
Renate Alumni Club: "she was just a friend"
Devil's Triangle:  "a drinking game"
FFFFFFFourth of July: "my friend stutters"


Sure man... sure...

Who lies about such silly nonsense anyway?  Why not just be honest that you liked to drink and have sex?

It seems that it wasn't very uncommon stuff in their yearbook.. In their day.. ....

~Snip~

As things stand right now, it seems to me that all Republicans + Joe Manchin will vote to confirm him. Manchin and Flake have both been saying pretty pro-Kavanaugh things, and nobody in-the-know seems worried about Collins and Murkowski.

I too feel the same way for Reps; but how did u know abt Manchin?

In case of Flake too; I think he simply wanted an investigation to appear to have exhausted all options and if the investigation doesn't reveal anything explicitly grotesque and just a bunch of hearsays; I think he'll go Yes.

....

Manchin (and Heitkamp) are red state (D) Senators and both appear to be under pressure from their constituents to vote yes.

All 5 of the swing Senators appear desperate for any kind of validation to vote yes.

Is it my crazy or is Cory Booker saying things that make no sense?

U mean the boob grabber ?

Never knew one cud manufacture sympathy out of lust, until I saw him.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6198473/amp/Senator-Cory-Bookers-column-groping-girl-resurfaces.html

I expect Kavanaugh to make it through the Senate unless some major scandal is revealed. On the Republican side, probably even Rand Paul will find it politically impossible to vote against him unless he's already destined to lose, and a few democrats will likely also be pressured to vote for him (though their votes will be unnecessary).

What do you think?

(CNN) — The confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh's nomination hasn't gone the way any Republican would have hoped when President Donald Trump picked him for the Supreme Court on July 9.

What looked like a sure-thing confirmation -- and one that would move the court in a decidedly more conservative direction for years to come -- has been badly sidetracked by allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.

And yet, it appears as though the incredibly public and nasty fight over what Kavanaugh did or didn't do has had a somewhat unexpected result: Republican base voters are suddenly telling pollsters that they are considerably more enthusiastic about voting in 33 days' time.

In a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, Republicans had closed a 10-point enthusiasm deficit with Democrats in July, which is down to just 2 points now. In July, 78% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans said the November elections were "very important." Now, 80% of Democrats say the same while 78% of Republicans do too.

That same poll shows that the Democratic edge on the generic ballot question -- if the election were held today would you vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in your district -- has been cut in half (from 12 points to 6) between mid-September and now. Now, this poll was conducted entirely in one night, so it may not be completely representative of public opinion.
...

I don't even really trust him on the 2^nd amendment -- probably he would support all sorts of incremental regulations. Though maybe his experience with his nomination will make him more radical, which might be interesting.

I don't think there is any public evidence that shows any of this is a lie. What you say is nothing more than speculation.

“As someone who knew and liked Brett Kavanaugh when we clerked together, I have tried very hard to stay out of this process and to give him the benefit of the doubt,” said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School. But Kavanaugh’s behavior at the hearing last week “was not what we should expect of a Supreme Court Justice. Telling obvious lies about his background, yelling at senators, refusing to answer questions, and blaming his troubles on others is not appropriate behavior.”

STATUS OF BRETT KAVANAUGH PERJURIES

Perjury ("Renate Alumnius"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("Devil's Triangle"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("FFFF"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("boofing"): CONFIRMED
Perjury ("Bart"): CONFIRMED
Perjury (no blackouts): CONFIRMED
Perjury (no groping): CONFIRMED

.....
Perjury ("FFFF"): CONFIRMED
....

Keyword being "obvious" lies... it is obvious to everyone with a brain

Sorry, not sorry

He is either a liar, or a complete idiot... either of which should disqualify him for the position

Even if he was honest about the FFFF referring to someone with a stutter... making fun of people with disabilities should disqualify him from being a justice on the supreme court

According to Seth Abramson (Lawyer, Professor, Investigative Journalist, Author, etc):
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047698391722065920 (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1047698391722065920)

...

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/)

I hope Kavanaugh goes after all these political mercenaries with defamation suits.

But let's not get carried away. He's not gonna sue anyone. He might be a shitty person but not a complete idiot.

I'm not so sure about that did you hear his conspiracy theories lol, also he might be the only SCOTUS nominee to have a former SC Justice publicly say he wouldn't support his nomination.  I mean that takes an idiot so I guess we should debate if he is a complete idiot or not eh?!

Kavanaugh may have underhandedly won enough votes with his temper tantrum and cover story FBI investigation but he exposed himself in a way that will forever cast doubt on his credibility as a professional.  I know the right doesn't care as long as they get the 5th seat but it should matter he is way to partisan to sit on the bench!

....the right doesn't care as long as they get the 5th seat....

Kavanaugh may have underhandedly won enough votes with his temper tantrum and cover story FBI investigation but he exposed himself in a way that will forever cast doubt on his credibility as an impartial Jurist.  I know the right doesn't care as long as they get the 5th seat but it should matter he is way to partisan and doesn't have the temperament to sit on the SC and a staggering number of legal professionals are publicly making the same statements!

5th seat? You mean, the 6th, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices

7th seat here we come...

That's not what that wikipedia page says:

Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh

who's 6th?

With Senator Collins' announcement that she will vote to confirm Kavanaugh, along with Senator Flake's yes vote, it sounds like Kavanaugh will have sufficient votes to get confirmed.

....
Now, can we impeach RBG ...  

I can't believe a possible rapist will become supreme justice. It is scary as hell.

I was thinking of Kennedy, but maybe he's considered middle of the road.

I don't know why she voted "no" for the confirmations to move to debate, and then plans to vote "yes" to confirm Kavanaugh.

That's great news.  I don't know why she voted "no" for the confirmations to move to debate, and then plans to vote "yes" to confirm Kavanaugh.  Weird.  None the less I'm glad she's voting to confirm.

You are thinking of Senator Murkowski from Alaska. She still plans on voting 'no' however Republicans can afford to lose one Senator with no Democrat votes, and Senator Manchin from West Virginia announced he will cross party lines and vote yes.

You guys really need to get that fake news shit sorted out LOL.

I can't believe a possible rapist will become supreme justice. It is scary as hell.

Fun fact: You are a possible rapist.

Fun fact: You are a possible rapist.

I can't believe a possible rapist will become supreme justice. It is scary as hell.

Let's get serious for a  few minutes here. Let's think of this from a technocrat's stance. Where do liberal law professionals stand on this issue? Should he be appointed, what does the public think.

Last count was 2200 voting "absolutely not".

--

Like actually use that same logic with TPPA and Economics: http://ccsi.columbia.edu/2016/10/03/220-law-and-economics-professors-sign-letter-opposing-isds-in-the-tpp/

--

220 vs 2200? that's an insane amount of technocratic leaders weighing in on the issue.

.....that's an insane amount of technocratic leaders weighing in on the issue.

I can't believe a possible rapist will become supreme justice. It is scary as hell.

Bill Cosby was also a possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) rapist for many years before he was a convicted rapist.

Playing with words is fun if you're purposely being decisive in the argument here.

In reality, there's testimony against him. The investigation into that testimony was fairly limited and therefore found no evidence. However, it's absolutely known that he's a liar, by hearsay (and absolutely refusal to take sworn testimony).

1 - FIFY

2 - Why do you think anyone would care what a bunch of law professors think?

Wow, this whole time I thought I was responding to a very vague, general, and practically universally applicable designation, effectively making it senseless, but apparently I am "playing with words". Thanks for educating me. BTW the word is divisive, unless you are telling me I have resolved this conflict.

It's pretty bad when industry overwhelmingly opposes something like this.

It's even more significant when you consider it is AFAIK an unprecedented move for the legal community to do something like this.  I guess this will make a nice little black list for Kavanaugh if any of those professional that signed the document ever come before the SC!

Add to that the WaPo Op Ed from the editorial board themselves urging senators to vote no on Kananaugh (something the Op Ed board has not done in over 30 years).

And last but possibly the most important is the opinion of the 3rd longest sitting Justice of the Supreme Court in the history of the USA.  A man who is arguably one of the single most experienced people alive with respect to the SC.  Sitting and retired SC Justices rarely if ever come out and state categorically a nomination should not be elevated, I don't know of it ever happening.

But don't worry none of those people are even remotely close to being able to assess Kavanaugh's suitability as well as the legal Pundits like Quicksy and the HARD right that is over represented here in this board.

What should actually scare you is that a certain section of society is saying that any female can now accuse a male of sexual assault without a shred of

evidence and that this is ok.

I won't worry.

But just in case I should worry, instead of pointing to 2200 nutty left wing professors signing a letter that they're nutty left wing....

Can you point to nutty legal opinions by Kav that shows he's unsuitable?

Hell, the supreme court's not even supposed to be partisan.

It's so odd for me as a Canadian..

I won't worry.

But just in case I should worry, instead of pointing to 2200 nutty left wing professors signing a letter that they're nutty left wing....

Can you point to nutty legal opinions by Kav that shows he's unsuitable?

And last but possibly the most important is the opinion of the 3rd longest sitting Justice of the Supreme Court in the history of the USA.  A man who is arguably one of the single most experienced people alive with respect to the SC.  Sitting and retired SC Justices rarely if ever come out and state categorically a nomination should not be elevated, I don't know of it ever happening.

Add to that the WaPo Op Ed from the editorial board themselves urging senators to vote no on Kananaugh (something the Op Ed board has not done in over 30 years).

This is based on a tweet (https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/status/1048037310036692997) from Senator Hatch's office, however it bears repeating myself....

The Washington Post editorial board also had not blamed a hurricane until about 4 weeks ago, so it is a big month for the Washington Post's editorial board.

Does a man with 128 years experience  ;), or in other words the single living person with the most experience ON THE Supreme Court count as a legal opinion?  And BTW this was a man who PREVIOUS to Kavanaughs testimony at the Ford hearing thought Kavanaugh was suited for the position.  After Kavanaughs temper tantrum former Justice Stevens and thousands of other legal professionals had a slightly different opinion.  So much of a different opinion that they did something NEVER done before LOL.


But of course I would agree you are far more qualified to assess his suitability.

So there are no nutty legal opinions by Kavanaugh.

Thanks.

In one of his earliest opinions, Jane Doe v. DC, 489 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Judge Kavanaugh overruled U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy’s preliminary injunction, 374 F.Supp.2d 107 (D.D.C. 2005) and later summary judgment and permanent injunction, 232 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) and said that even when a severely intellectually disabled person expresses that they do not want an unnecessary elective surgery, the government can still impose that surgery against their wishes without violating constitutional or statutory rights.

Brian Hundley was a 41-year old graduate of Howard University School of Dentistry studying for his boards. He was sitting in his car, unarmed, when a 6’3”, 204-pound off- duty police officer in street clothes ordered him to get out, and in short order shot and killed him with his 9mm Glock. The officer said he shot Brian because he moved his hand behind his back, but the jury specifically rejected that story in a special interrogatory verdict, and found for Brian’s surviving loved ones. In Hundley v. DC, 494 F.3d 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007), however, Judge Kavanaugh overruled the jury and found for the officer. The opinion describes the facts from the officer’s point of view, id., despite the jury rejecting the officer’s story. As we have already been taught as 1Ls, in a situation like this, the judge is supposed to be deferential to the jury and state the facts in a light favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. But this early opinion was just one of Judge Kavanaugh’s regular departures from federal rules and constitutional standards.

Seventeen-year old Antonio Hester was sentenced to a maximum of ten years in prison as a minor. He had a learning disability, and DC public schools, which had been providing him special education for years, promised to continue to provide those services while he was incarcerated in Maryland, or, if they were not allowed into the prison, to provide compensatory services after his release. The Maryland prison did prevent DC from entering to provide Antonio with services, however, and DC then refused to provide services after release. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held that DC had backed out of a consent decree and ordered the school district to provide Antonio with compensatory services. 433 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006). Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, however, and not only reversed summary judgment but – glossing over a factual dispute he had with the district court (not the job of an appellate judge) and Judge Kessler’s legal analysis – directed judgment against Antonio, erasing any chance of educational relief. Hester v. DC, 505 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Judge Kavanaugh is no friend to liberty. In U.S. v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Kavanaugh justified ordering a person out of his car, detaining him, and searching his crotch area and under his pants by saying that the police had a “reasonable suspicion” that the car was stolen because the person “could not produce registration and could not name the car's owner,” 510 F.3d at 345–46. But the arrestee had given the car owner’s first name and his own driver’s license, and the police had confirmed that the driver’s license was clean and the car had never been reported missing or stolen. Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion upheld the arrestee’s 12-year prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine. Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules for the government in search-and-seizure. U.S. v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry into house & a later search warrant lacking probable cause), U.S. v. Washington, 559 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (giving deference to “aggressive traffic patrols” in “high crime areas”), U.S. v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (permitting search of home), U.S. v. Askew, 529 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (dissenting from en banc opinion) (allowing police officers to partially unzip man’s jacket without consent after a pat down and later, after man was not identified by witness, to fully unzip the jacket).

When Judge Kavanaugh has ruled for a criminal defendant on a point of law, he has specifically noted that it made little to no material difference in the outcome for the defendant. U.S. v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358, 361 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“The vacatur and remand of the felon-in-possession count does not affect Smith's term of imprisonment”). Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1257, 1257 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012), overruled by Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Hamdan was transferred in late 2008 to Yemen and then released there . . . . Our judgment would not preclude detention of Hamdan until the end of U.S. hostilities against al Qaeda[,] [n]or . . . any future military commission charges against Hamdan. . . [,] [n]or . . . appropriate criminal charges in civilian court.”); US v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction . . . . two of the defendants . . . are entitled to vacatur . . . and to resentencing under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. . . The [life] sentence of the remaining defendant . . . is affirmed. We also remand for . . . technical corrections . . . .”); US v. Williams, 784 F.3d 798, 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgment of the District Court except that, consistent with this Court's ordinary practice in these circumstances, we remand the case so that the District Court may address Williams's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance.”); US v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129, 1133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“In 2013, after the termination of her supervised release, Nwoye filed a motion to vacate her conviction . . . [w]e reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.”) (note that this case has been upheld as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh’s sympathy for criminal defendants and women; it should be noted that Judge Tatel had already dissented from the court’s affirmance of the conviction years earlier, 663 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and Judge Kavanaugh’s ruling happened after the defendant had completed her sentence – and he nonetheless said the case was “close.”); US v. Burnett, 827 F.3d 1108, 1112 (D.C. Cir.) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence in all respects, except that we vacate Burnett’s sentence and remand for the District Court to resentence Burnett.”);

In U.S. v. Lathern, 488 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh allowed the exclusion of exculpatory testimony from a defendant’s witness and expert witness in upholding an 8-year /97-month prison sentence. Other rulings in favor of long sentences include US v. Franklin, 663 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (life sentence); U.S. v. Duvall, 705 F.3d 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ruling against retroactive correction of crack cocaine disparity); U.S. v. Wright, 745 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ruling against defendant in case alleging attorney conflict of interest); U.S. v. Haight, 892 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (reversing a 12 year, 8 month sentence and vacating because it should be at least a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence); U.S. v. Knight, 824 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (rejecting speedy trial act and due process claims and a number of challenges to sentences).

By way of contrast: When Carlos Gustavo Gardellini filed a false federal tax return and illegally used offshore accounts, the federal guidelines called for a 10- to 16-month prison sentence. But Judge Kavanaugh, U.S. v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008), upheld a no-prison-time sentence with five years of probation in Belgium for this white collar criminal with his wife and child, and none of the normal probation conditions or restrictions. Judge Williams dissented. In U.S. v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh held that it was permissible for the district court to consider alleged conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in calculating a criminal sentence using the factors in the sentencing guidelines.

In Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011), Judge Kavanaugh held that American citizens have no Constitutional habeas corpus or due process rights to judicial review of whether they are likely to be tortured if they are transferred from U.S. to (in this case) Iraqi custody.

In Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh ruled that CIA employees who tortured and killed Guatemalans could not be held accountable in US courts for their violations of international and US law.

Over a dissent, in Jackson v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh threw out a black prison guard’s claim of discrimination, not even allowing it to go to trial, where the guard had shown evidence that he scored 98 out of 100 on qualification exams and that the prison kept positions open for years and had never hired an African American at the level of job he was seeking.

He consistently ruled for the government in FOIA cases against government transparency. Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Sack v. DOD, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

Against free speech when it applies to workers: In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Kavanaugh denied NLRB’s cross-application to enforce its order for the company to permit employees working in public to wear union shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of (Company)” on the back.

He has shown a comparatively huge amount of concern for trivial or corporate rights, e.g., finding the CFPB unconstitutional, PHH Corporation v. CFPB, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), or FAA regulations against flying model airplanes near D.C. monuments unlawful. Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

...

This guy is absolutely disgraceful and will be a burden on the SCOTUS for years. Democracy dies today at 5 PM.

Thanks. I back linked those and found they were widely circulated. However they don't show "nutty" legal work at all. But I agree with you that they show opinions that you and other liberals would not like.

So you've got a conservative judge.

To be entirely fair, your posts reflect that you are a left wing political operative. Or at the very least, a left wing extremist.

I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the United States Supreme Court. Later today, I will sign his Commission of Appointment, and he will be officially sworn in. Very exciting!

Democracy dies today at 5 PM.