Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National' started by Phillyxpat, Jun 5, 2018.
I'm just going to sit here with my popcorn and watch tomorrow's festivities...
Thought I would drop in and see what the PhillySpeaks pulse was.
Just as I expected!
And because this shitshow isn't crazy enough, the news in the morning, just before the hearing will be that a guy has come forward and said he's the one that assaulted Ford, not Kavanagh.
If verified, the crow eating by detestable democrats will be more entertaining than the election night meltdowns.
Morning Joe says that there are now two doppelganger Kavanaughs willing to fall on there swords to protect the nomination. Blood on the WH carpets sacrificed for Toddler Emperor Caligula the new fashion?
There was plenty of defense of Clinton, and some of it was nasty.. Kennedy (Ted) is generally just ignored because he was pretty guilty. But this isn't about Clinton or anyone else, unless the argument is that things should remain at the historic norm where accusers were treated as being in the wrong and things were swept under the rug. And really we've moved backwards here, Anita Hill at least had her claims investigated (FBI determined they were unfounded).
I brought up Clinton only because it was turned into a partisan complaint. The examples show that the same thing happens on both sides.
As far as the Anita Hill angle goes, I addressed that upthread. But here's another link on it:
Brett Kavanaugh: Key differences between Anita Hill, Christine Ford Supreme Court scandals
With that said, at this point I agree the FBI should be called back in to drive out the facts and truth in detail. Because this shitshow needs to be definitively put to rest within a more legal framework, almost purely for the health of the country. Consider the following scenarios:
1. If the accusers are telling the truth, then Kavanaugh is indeed a bad person and a criminal, and should not be on the court and instead probably be in jail. Full stop.
2. However, if the accusers are not telling the truth, then they can be charged with lying to Congress and sued for defamation. In the case of Swetnick, she could also potentially be charged with being an accessory to rape. Those charges could easily be used as leverage to find out who was paying them to say these things.
Either way, the thing that the Democrats seem to be missing is that Kavanaugh was the compromise choice from Trump. There are far more conservative judges that Trump could have appointed. If you run off Kavanaugh, then don't be surprised when you get someone more populist like an Amy Coney Barrett.
If anything Merrick Garland proves that the court can function for 400 days or more without a ninth "justice". Just another broken institution for a bankruptcy feeding executive to hang a fire sale on before foreclosure sign goes up.
This is going around on the RW but there is no legal case for this. Knowledge of crimes is not 'accessory', you have to actively do something to further or conceal the crime. Some states to have certain duties to assist or report, but even those make it a misdemeanor (and very rarely used), you don't take on the culpability of the act (Maryland and DC don't have these laws). This potentially-punitive response to the claims is imo part of what enyo was referring to about the different attitudes between the parties towards these events.
Kavanaugh as a compromise choice was good for a laugh. He's no moderate.
"Use your common sense" ~~ Brett Kavanaugh's Lawyer Mom
White House limits scope of the FBI’s Kavanaugh investigation | NBC News
It seems Kavanaugh may have lied to the Committee about when he first became aware of the Ramirez allegations.
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public | NBC News
Can a lawyer shed light on this? Isn't the act of trying to coordinate testimony akin to witness tampering?
He was encouraging them to testify in his defense, which is fine as long as he was not asking them to lie. It is an affirmative defense to the charge "that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully".
However as the article notes, Kavanaugh appears to have lied to the Committee regarding who initiated the communications.
Kavanaugh appears to have lied about many things under oath.
A.O.T. - Age of Trump - 2 + 2 = 5