SURVEY: Is Brett Kavanaugh suitable for the Supreme Court?

[Kieran00001]

20 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

 

if i were to adapt your modus of thinking i might come to the very same conclusion about actors/actresses and corporate shills on several mainstream media networks,... nahhh , that could never be true

 

Well, we know its true in her case.

[atyclb]

in a way i sympathize with ms blasey ford because i too am a survivor

 

participating here is akin to "intellectual rape"

[atyclb]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

23 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

 

if i were to adapt your modus of thinking i might come to the very same conclusion about actors/actresses and corporate shills on several mainstream media networks,... nahhh , that could never be true

 

Well, we know its true in her case.

 

you said it therefore it must be true

[allanos]

24 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But not according to experts in body language, according to them it is significant.

To my mind, there is much more "significance" in the fact that Dr Blasey Ford, who has a very distinguished academic record, and, whereby, she interacts at the highest corporate levels and lectures as a professor to graduate students, chose to speak in a shy, "little girl" voice throughout her testimony, and also displayed a seeming absent-minded confusion, on occasion, to what were, really, the easiest of questions to respond to.

 

Disingenuous to the nth degree!

 

One can put a spin on all of this: that she was in awe, overpowered by the sense of occasion, perhaps, or was simply reflecting the trauma which she may have experienced, both recently by being in the public eye, and also in the past, if her story is indeed true.

 

However, it is almost without doubt that she would have been "drilled" by her "well-meaning", pro bono attorneys, who not only subjected her to a polygraph but would also have have repeatedly schooled her with the questions she was likely to face, and appropriate answers, in a synthetic courtroom setting. Not once, but many times.  Over and over, until she got it "right"!

 

My take on Dr Ford is that she was well-rehearsed, full of guile, and attempted to play on the sympathies of her audience, both within the hearing and to the world at large. A reflection of what she had been trained to do by her lawyers.  

 

It didn't cut it with me, frankly.

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, allanos said:

It didn't cut it with me, frankly.

didnt cut it with the most qualified person in the room to judge credibility...that being the sex crimes prosecutor.......

[atyclb]

im not a lawyer but in case in which multiple sides / parties deem both witnesses compelling , ?credible would it not come down to 'corroboration"??

 

who has corroboration.    blasey actually had counter corroboration among her witnesses

[Kieran00001]

9 minutes ago, allanos said:

To my mind, there is much more "significance" in the fact that Dr Blasey Ford, who has a very distinguished academic record, and, whereby, she interacts at the highest corporate levels and lectures as a professor to graduate students, chose to speak in a shy, "little girl" voice throughout her testimony, and also displayed a seeming absent-minded confusion, on occasion, to what were, really, the easiest of questions to respond to.

 

Disingenuous to the nth degree!

 

One can put a spin on all of this: that she was in awe, overpowered by the sense of occasion, perhaps, or was simply reflecting the trauma which she may have experienced, both recently by being in the public eye, and also in the past, if her story is indeed true.

 

However, it is almost without doubt that she would have been "drilled" by her "well-meaning", pro bono attorneys, who not only subjected her to a polygraph but would also have have repeatedly schooled her with the questions she was likely to face, and appropriate answers, in a synthetic courtroom setting. Not once, but many times.  Over and over, until she got it "right"!

 

My take on Dr Ford is that she was well-rehearsed, full of guile, and attempted to play on the sympathies of her audience, both within the hearing and to the world at large. A reflection of what she had been trained to do by her lawyers.  

 

It didn't cut it with me, frankly.

 

And it doesn't have to, she was not on trial.  Concentrate on the person who was, Brett, he couldn't answer questions that were unrelated to the allegations without getting aggressive, trying to turn the question back on the judge, making all sorts of little pouts and other odd faces, without nodding to say no and shaking his head to say yes, there is nothing compelling about any of his reactions, I have seen 8 year olds act with more composure than this little twerp, and some people seem to think he has a character suitable for a judge, utterly ludicrous, our policemen have to have better composure than him to get the job.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, atyclb said:

im not a lawyer but in case in which multiple sides / parties deem both witnesses compelling , ?credible would it not come down to 'corroboration"??

 

who has corroboration.    blasey actually had counter corroboration among her witnesses

You are correct. 

 

Corroboration is the first thing that any lawyer looks for. Witnesses who have an "interest" in the proceeding are always subject to attack as to bias, prejudice, recollection, etc. So even the shakiest witness becomes credible if there is corroboration. Hence Accomplice Corroboration rules in some jusrisdictions.

 

Like the discussion earlier regarding perjury. You can't have a perjury conviction, in general, without corroboration, simply because many times its Statement 1 vs Statement/Fact 2. Thus Kavanaughs "connections" statement could never result in a perjury conviction (or even in a prosecution, based on the language alone) because Yale would not corroborate. Compare the Clinton/Lewinsky scenario, where we have Clinton Chowder to corroborate.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, atyclb said:

im not a lawyer but in case in which multiple sides / parties deem both witnesses compelling , ?credible would it not come down to 'corroboration"??

 

who has corroboration.    blasey actually had counter corroboration among her witnesses

You are correct. 

 

Corroboration is the first thing that any lawyer looks for. Witnesses who have an "interest" in the proceeding are always subject to attack as to bias, prejudice, recollection, etc. So even the shakiest witness becomes credible if there is corroboration. Hence Accomplice Corroboration rules in some jusrisdictions.

 

Like the discussion earlier regarding perjury. You can't have a perjury conviction, in general, without corroboration, simply because many times its Statement 1 vs Statement/Fact 2. Thus Kavanaughs "connections" statement could never result in a perjury conviction (or even in a prosecution, based on the language alone) because Yale would not corroborate. Compare the Clinton/Lewinsky scenario, where we have Clinton Chowder to corroborate.

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, atyclb said:

im not a lawyer but in case in which multiple sides / parties deem both witnesses compelling , ?credible would it not come down to 'corroboration"??

 

who has corroboration.    blasey actually had counter corroboration among her witnesses

 

And Brett has his room mate accusing him of perjury on every single statement he made about his time in college, two other women alleging sexual assault, and a series of provable lies he made under oath.  But no, in this case it does not come down to anything other than the vote, which has already been, it was not a trial, in a trial the other women would have been investigated and allowed to provide evidence, however in this sham that the GOP ran the FBI were not permitted to investigate them and their evidence was dismissed from the hearing.  In a normal trial it would have been adjourned when the likes of his room mate came forward, but not in the GOP hearing, they just rushed it through, quote desperate as they were to have their boy in there.

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

You are correct. 

 

Corroboration is the first thing that any lawyer looks for. Witnesses who have an "interest" in the proceeding are always subject to attack as to bias, prejudice, recollection, etc. So even the shakiest witness becomes credible if there is corroboration. Hence Accomplice Corroboration rules in some jusrisdictions.

 

Like the discussion earlier regarding perjury. You can't have a perjury conviction, in general, without corroboration, simply because many times its Statement 1 vs Statement/Fact 2. Thus Kavanaughs "connections" statement could never result in a perjury conviction (or even in a prosecution, based on the language alone) because Yale would not corroborate. Compare the Clinton/Lewinsky scenario, where we have Clinton Chowder to corroborate.

 

You think Yale would never corroborate and provide evidence that his grandfather went to Yale?  We already have his enrollment papers, its already out darling.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

didnt cut it with the most qualified person in the room to judge credibility...that being the sex crimes prosecutor.......

And we know that because she was chosen by an impartial panel of.....Republicans.

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You think Yale would never corroborate and provide evidence that his grandfather went to Yale?  We already have his enrollment papers, its already out darling.

Your analysis of the situation gets more ridiculous with each post. But hey, is he guilty of perjury? Notice how you avoid that subject 55555 ???? 

 

 

PS I like how you call me darling. What are you doing later?

 

[atyclb]

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

11 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

You are correct. 

 

Corroboration is the first thing that any lawyer looks for. Witnesses who have an "interest" in the proceeding are always subject to attack as to bias, prejudice, recollection, etc. So even the shakiest witness becomes credible if there is corroboration. Hence Accomplice Corroboration rules in some jusrisdictions.

 

Like the discussion earlier regarding perjury. You can't have a perjury conviction, in general, without corroboration, simply because many times its Statement 1 vs Statement/Fact 2. Thus Kavanaughs "connections" statement could never result in a perjury conviction (or even in a prosecution, based on the language alone) because Yale would not corroborate. Compare the Clinton/Lewinsky scenario, where we have Clinton Chowder to corroborate.

 

You think Yale would never corroborate and provide evidence that his grandfather went to Yale?  We already have his enrollment papers, its already out darling.

 

are you saying they found his grandfathers yearbook?

[atyclb]

12 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

And Brett has his room mate accusing him of perjury on every single statement he made about his time in college, two other women alleging sexual assault, and a series of provable lies he made under oath.  But no, in this case it does not come down to anything other than the vote, which has already been, it was not a trial, in a trial the other women would have been investigated and allowed to provide evidence, however in this sham that the GOP ran the FBI were not permitted to investigate them and their evidence was dismissed from the hearing.  In a normal trial it would have been adjourned when the likes of his room mate came forward, but not in the GOP hearing, they just rushed it through, quote desperate as they were to have their boy in there.

 

at some point a line needs to be drawn in the sand and the goal posts not moved yet once again. there is a crystal clear strategy, hope and prayer for the dems (i am a registered dem) to delay the confirmation in the hopes either candidate will withdraw or they win majority in midterm elections.

 

to quote a verse from an old robert zimmerman song.  'you dont need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing"

Edited October 8, 2018 by atyclb

[Nyezhov]

21 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

are you saying they found his grandfathers yearbook?

There is no question that Grandpappy went to Yale. The issue is whether Justice Kavanaugh had a "connection" to get into Law School. Yale says they dont work that way, Justice Kavanaughs grandpappy's attendance at Yale made no difference. So the case for perjury on that statement is flimsier than Stormy Daniels sense of modesty, and the cries for his impeachment or prosecution on those statments you see in the Press are little more than the baying of the mob that didnt get their way.....

 

When you have the facts, you argue the facts. When you have the law, you aregue the law. When you have neither, you just argue.

 

Wonder what this Board will be like when Mueller clears President Trump. Or if, God forbid, Justice Ginsburg resigns due to health or passes away, may she live a long life.

 

 

[allanos]

55 minutes ago, atyclb said:

im not a lawyer but in case in which multiple sides / parties deem both witnesses compelling , ?credible would it not come down to 'corroboration"??

 

who has corroboration.    blasey actually had counter corroboration among her witnesses

As to the narrative from Dr Ford and the narrative from Judge Kavanaugh, it came down, I believe, and despite partisanship on both sides of the aisle, to the "balance of probabilities".  That is to say, what do I infer from the evidence, the witnesses, and the pleadings; what is likely to be the truth in what has been presented?

 

The Republicans and the Democrats were largely in balance in terms of numbers, which was to be expected.  Whatever they truly believed, they voted their political affiliation.  However, one or two Senators evidenced honour above bias, and made their voices heard, and their votes meaningful, on the balance of probabilities

[Kieran00001]

21 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

You are the one that called me "darling".

 

Is Associate Justice Kavanaugh guilty of perjury? If you are ignoring me then I should receive no response ????

 

You know what never mind, I think we all get the point now. Carry on!

 

I can call you darling without wanting spend my evening with you, darling.

 

I am not a judge, I do not decide whether or not he is guilty, however I recall him lying under oath and made the suggestion that this was perjury, you were making yourself busy countering my claim, remember?  How is that one going for you?  Where is your reasoning?  I am waiting for the actual reason why you think it isn't perjury, something you have so far been unable to produce, instead coming out with jargon you do not really understand backed up by nothing more than your assertion that it no one would take on the case, again without any reason given.

[allanos]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

And it doesn't have to, she was not on trial.  Concentrate on the person who was, Brett, he couldn't answer questions that were unrelated to the allegations without getting aggressive, trying to turn the question back on the judge, making all sorts of little pouts and other odd faces, without nodding to say no and shaking his head to say yes, there is nothing compelling about any of his reactions, I have seen 8 year olds act with more composure than this little twerp, and some people seem to think he has a character suitable for a judge, utterly ludicrous, our policemen have to have better composure than him to get the job.

If one pauses to think for a moment, and strive for a little objectivity, then it is clear that BK was on a hiding to nothing, as the saying goes.

 

If he had adopted the opposite posture to the one which he did, did not defend himself vociferously, then, in the "Left's" court of public opinion, he would have been found guilty of the allegations because he didn't defend himself, or, alternatively, would be characterised as "cold", "heartless", "soul-less", "unfeeling", "uncaring", or any of countless other

demeaning and degrading epithets.

 

In a subjective environment, though, we simply sit ready to point fingers, and objectivity goes out the window, doesn't it?

[Nyezhov]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I can call you darling without wanting spend my evening with you, darling.

 

I am not a judge, I do not decide whether or not he is guilty, however I recall him lying under oath and made the suggestion that this was perjury, you were making yourself busy countering my claim, remember?  How is that one going for you?  Where is your reasoning?  I am waiting for the actual reason why you think it isn't perjury, something you have so far been unable to produce, instead coming out with jargon you do not really understand backed up by nothing more than your assertion that it no one would take on the case, again without any reason given.

See #297 above. Hows it going for you now that your perjury accusation has been blown out of the water 555555........????

[allanos]

17 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

There is no question that Grandpappy went to Yale. The issue is whether Justice Kavanaugh had a "connection" to get into Law School. Yale says they dont work that way, Justice Kavanaughs grandpappy's attendance at Yale made no difference. So the case for perjury on that statement is flimsier than Stormy Daniels sense of modesty, and the cries for his impeachment or prosecution on those statments you see in the Press are little more than the baying of the mob that didnt get their way.....

 

When you have the facts, you argue the facts. When you have the law, you aregue the law. When you have neither, you just argue.

 

Wonder what this Board will be like when Mueller clears President Trump. Or if, God forbid, Justice Ginsburg resigns due to health or passes away, may she live a long life.

 

 

more than the baying of the mob that didnt get their way

 

Absolutely! Not unlike the kangaroo courts of the French Revolution, finding the nobility and the aristocracy guilty . . . for simply being just that.  And the public DID get their way, in that bloody period, by way of mob justice, and Madame Guillotine was kept extremely busy.

 

There is a definite analogy between the hysterical baying left, as evidenced over Kavanaugh matter, and the French mobs mentioned above.

 

Fortunately, there is no execution by guillotine in the USA, but one can be pilloried in the court of public opinion, and reputations can be brought down.

[Nyezhov]

11 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I can call you darling without wanting spend my evening with you, darling.

 

I am not a judge, I do not decide whether or not he is guilty, however I recall him lying under oath and made the suggestion that this was perjury, you were making yourself busy countering my claim, remember?  How is that one going for you?  Where is your reasoning?  I am waiting for the actual reason why you think it isn't perjury, something you have so far been unable to produce, instead coming out with jargon you do not really understand backed up by nothing more than your assertion that it no one would take on the case, again without any reason given.

See #297 above. Hows it going for you now that your perjury accusation has been blown out of the water 555555........????

[Nyezhov]

11 minutes ago, allanos said:

 

Fortunately, there is no execution by guillotine in the USA, but one can be pilloried in the court of public opinion, and reputations can be brought down.

Especially when you have media types bragging how happy they are that they destroyed Kavanaughs life......

[Kieran00001]

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

See #297 above. Hows it going for you now that your perjury accusation has been blown out of the water 555555........????

Quote

There is no question that Grandpappy went to Yale. The issue is whether Justice Kavanaugh had a "connection" to get into Law School.

 

No, the issue is him lying under oath about not having connections there, did you forget that you tried the exact same one yesterday?

 

[riclag]

28 minutes ago, allanos said:

As to the narrative from Dr Ford and the narrative from Judge Kavanaugh, it came down, I believe, and despite partisanship on both sides of the aisle, to the "balance of probabilities".  That is to say, what do I infer from the evidence, the witnesses, and the pleadings; what is likely to be the truth in what has been presented?

 

The Republicans and the Democrats were largely in balance in terms of numbers, which was to be expected.  Whatever they truly believed, they voted their political affiliation.  However, one or two Senators evidenced honour above bias, and made their voices heard, and their votes meaningful, on the balance of probabilities

Agree! I look at Flake and Dem, Manchen! Why did Flake vote yes?

He disagrees and states it publicly he doesn't like PT style of politics ,while claiming he would vote yes ,if no changes occurred as a result of the second FBI investigation .

 

 Now Manchen is in a political quagmire,being a Dem Senator in a state that PT won by over 20%. He obviously is voting yes to keep his office,if there was undeniable new evidence would he have voted ,no!

[Kieran00001]

46 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

There is no question that Grandpappy went to Yale. The issue is whether Justice Kavanaugh had a "connection" to get into Law School. Yale says they dont work that way, Justice Kavanaughs grandpappy's attendance at Yale made no difference. So the case for perjury on that statement is flimsier than Stormy Daniels sense of modesty, and the cries for his impeachment or prosecution on those statments you see in the Press are little more than the baying of the mob that didnt get their way.....

 

When you have the facts, you argue the facts. When you have the law, you aregue the law. When you have neither, you just argue.

 

Wonder what this Board will be like when Mueller clears President Trump. Or if, God forbid, Justice Ginsburg resigns due to health or passes away, may she live a long life.

 

 

 

Quote

when Mueller clears President Trump

 

You really are quite the dreamer. 

Did it occur to you that the FBI do not offer reduced charges based on information unless there is some information to be given on someone else? 

Did it occur to you that Manafort being offered to flip by the FBI means that he has information on someone higher up that him? 

Did you consider who is higher than the campaign manager? 

Did you consider how many of Trumps inner circle are currently sat in jail?

Did you consider why the investigation has moved onto Trumps personal and corporate wealth?  

Did you consider why the FBI have given full immunity to Trumps CFO?

Did you consider the evidence made public a few days ago showing Trump complicit in a tax evasion scheme worth hundreds of millions?

 

 

[Nyezhov]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

 

Did you consider how many of Trumps inner circle are currently sat in jail?

Did you consider the evidence made public a few days ago showing Trump complicit in a tax evasion scheme worth hundreds of millions?

 

 

As to the first...who? Other than Manfort?

As to the  second...Ever hear of the Statue of Limitations.

 

Back to my snausages 5555555. Your posts are quite amusing.

[bristolboy]

44 minutes ago, riclag said:

Agree! I look at Flake and Dem, Manchen! Why did Flake vote yes?

He disagrees and states it publicly he doesn't like PT style of politics ,while claiming he would vote yes ,if no changes occurred as a result of the second FBI investigation .

 

 Now Manchen is in a political quagmire,being a Dem Senator in a state that PT won by over 20%. He obviously is voting yes to keep his office,if there was undeniable new evidence would he have voted ,no!

Even if it meant losing the elections? 

[DJ54]

He’s in a hopefully he’ll do a great job he’s been a judge for many a years and has done a good job. 

 

I’m not for any party. More interested in politicians to get their heads out of their rears and do good for the Citizens of the USA

instead of quarreling amongst parties. 

 

Today I wrote to the Senators of the state and White House and told them the same. Suggested if this keeps up investigate every

politician using same guidelines line high school until now.

 

If any show perceived issues the politician resigns and all benefits cut and banned for life for further political positions. What’s good for one is good for all. 

 

There was a lot of time and money wasted on this issue that if it happened should have came up long ago. 

 

Understand everyone has their own opinion s no need to brow beat.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

There is no question that Grandpappy went to Yale. The issue is whether Justice Kavanaugh had a "connection" to get into Law School. Yale says they dont work that way, Justice Kavanaughs grandpappy's attendance at Yale made no difference.

Yale claims it no longer works that way, It certainly does not deny that 30 years ago it did work that way.