Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

fre wrote:

my view? the out-of-court statements without cross-examination opportunity are definitively hearsay. They wouldn't be admitted in court. what in the world are you talking about

When a bunch of people say that they have no memory of the alleged incident, the normal process would be to drop the investigation, not to drag those people in front of a grand jury to repeat what they already said.

And hearsay is admitted in lots of legal proceedings other than trials (motions hearings, sentencings, arbitrations). The fact that something is hearsay doesn't make it inherently worthless.

800 dude wrote:

fre wrote:

my view? the out-of-court statements without cross-examination opportunity are definitively hearsay. They wouldn't be admitted in court. what in the world are you talking about

When a bunch of people say that they have no memory of the alleged incident, the normal process would be to drop the investigation, not to drag those people in front of a grand jury to repeat what they already said.

And hearsay is admitted in lots of legal proceedings other than trials (motions hearings, sentencings, arbitrations). The fact that something is hearsay doesn't make it inherently worthless.

All I'm saying is they are hearsay

Four people wrote:

Her best option, and that of the other accusers, is to file official charges against Kavanaugh in Maryland.

You can't indict someone for an event that happened "sometime in the 80s" at an unspecified place. That would get tossed immediately.

#metoo wrote:

Four poople wrote:

The specific party has not been identified.

Do you know the date and location of every single party you’ve ever been to? Did you know every person at the party? Have you ever been to a party at a house you only went to once? Ever get drugged and raped or know anyone that has? How long do you think a rape takes?

yes, I remember the basics of every party I ever went to. At least a few friends that I went with. And, if I was drugged and raped, I would remember how I escaped my tormentor and how I got home. That would be at least as indelibly ingrained in my memory as the event itself.

panem et circensis wrote:

Absolutely pathetic display from the dems, and this will hurt them among any right thinking person.

Small point here: I doubt it will hurt them there at all.

I'm confident that you would only define a person as "right thinking" if s/he was *already* the kind of person who would never accept anything from Democrats.

Reith wrote:

This actually is a reasonably good litmus test for intelligence. IF you believe Brett Kavanaugh you are not gifted with high intelligence. Of course those who disagree by definition are not aware of it.

Yet people who believe Ford are willing to presume a man is guilty in spite of having zero evidence. If that's not a sign of insufficient intelligence, I don't know what is.

800 dude wrote:

Four people wrote:

Her best option, and that of the other accusers, is to file official charges against Kavanaugh in Maryland.

You can't indict someone for an event that happened "sometime in the 80s" at an unspecified place. That would get tossed immediately.

That was the point of bringing in the prosecutor, evaluate the claim. The prosecutor has stated that there is simply not enough evidence to bring a charge. I believe she also said that she wouldn't even request a search warrant based on what she heard.

#notme wrote:

yes, I remember the basics of every party I ever went to. .

So you've been to one party?

Her memory is consistent with someone experiencing trauma, 36 years after the event. Some things will be seared into memory (the attack itself) but other things that are peripheral (how she got there and got home) are not in the memory bank after all this time.

And yet the alleged moment she was free from her attackers, when she was safe inside the bathroom. She didn't scream. Even though her best friend was allegedly downstairs along with one other alleged witness. Not a peep. And then, once she was free, she told nobody. Not her best friend, not her parents, didn't write it in her diary, etc. Can't explain how she got there or how she got home. There is no supporting evidence for her claim, only four rebuttals and one calendar that basically provides evidence that Kavanaugh could not have plausibly been there on the dates in question. Plus, nobody brings up the fact that the two alleged attackers were both football players that spent a lot of time lifting weights / working out. Had they been intent on raping her, physically it would not have been much of a contest, but they didn't. She wasn't raped.

not credible wrote:

#notme wrote:

yes, I remember the basics of every party I ever went to. .

So you've been to one party?

At least I have been to one.

May be so, but until someone else steps forward, it does not pass the red face test.

All of the signed statements were made by the declarants themselves (other than Mark Judge's personal statement today). They were not made by other individuals speaking in their behest.

That is far to rational to be swallowed by deluded partisans.

joedirt wrote:

All of the signed statements were made by the declarants themselves (other than Mark Judge's personal statement today). They were not made by other individuals speaking in their behest.

The declarants have to be at the hearing or trial for it to not be hearsay. The piece of paper can't speak for them.

Understood. I'd feel a lot better if they had brought in the 3 people who said they don't ever remember being at such a party.

After sleeping on this and seeing some more possibility I thought of Lance Armstrong and all the doping deniers. I'm not saying that's Kavanaugh but for me to believe him I wanted a strong denial but that's what the dopers gave us as well. People felt Kavanaugh's Fox interview he didn't deny enough and this display was much stronger, but I'm wondering if we read too much into it. I would just be flabbergasted if someone accused me of this.

However, the burden of proof is on the accuser and she hasn't met my bar. Maybe I shouldn't care about the timing of this but I do. Feinstein should have come forward earlier.

However, I saw some more testimony last night and though Kavanaugh should have just said, "I'm fine with the FBI investigating this." He gave the impression he was up for whatever in terms of investigation but then when pressed I felt like he didn't want this going on much more. I could see how he is sick of this process and be pissed if it was last second smear (the timing really hurts the Democrats I think) but why not let someone go talk to Mark Judge?

I'd feel better about the process if Judge was interviewed. You say there isn't a Mark Judge statement but there is a statement denying this, but in a better world he could be interviewed by the FBI.

Part of what they both said seems a stretch to me. I guess you could debate what blacking out is, but if he said "I've drinking a lot and don't remember every detail, but am confident I never did something like this" I'd find it more believable than turning it back on the senator asking the question. He doens't want to admit to having blacked out.

On her side she said she only had "1 beer" but doesn't remember how she got home? If she had said just "she had been drinking" I'd fine that more in line with not remembering how she got home.

The FBI has looked into his past. If anything argue he doesn't want them talking to Mark Judge.

But can we get our facts straight. I don't think Mark Judge refused anything. He hasn't been subpoened. He issued a statement under penalty of perjury. It's more accurate to say the Republicans didn't ask him to testify.

So she should have just said "this proves you're a liar because an innocence person would have watched the testimony?"

And you expect everyone to 100% agree with this. I think that's nuts.

She or anyone could still make that argument today. There are hearings and votes to come. I see your argument and I found it strange he was shown with his security detail getting in a car during her testimony as I figured he would watch, but he could have people associated with him watch it and relay to him the highlights.

I see your point and agreed on #2. After slept on it, I have way more questions than I did last night as evidenced by myself thinking of the drug stuff.

These boards are amazing. July 1st before July 4th on a sunday is probably like a weekend.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Doesn’t matter, in a week Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS.

You are right. In this case it seems, the truth doesn't matter.

This is the left, folks. They are crybabies. They can't handle losing, they can't handle anyone disagreeing with them, they can't handle the truth, they can't handle not getting their way. . . and so they act like this. They smash windows, set things on fire, threaten people, etc.

It's over, Dems. You lost.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6218985/Protesters-confront-Sen-Jeff-Flake-elevator-reveals-hell-vote-Kavanaugh.html

joedirt wrote:

. . . only four rebuttals . . .

Can we quit using "rebuttal" incorrectly? There's 3 "no recollections" and Kavanaugh's denial. "No recollections" don't help Ford's case, but they don't "rebut" it either.