Passion, chaos as Kavanaugh confirmation vote nears - Polidicks

Id personally ask the FBI to help back me up that there's no apparent evidence of said accusations? There's a reason why he kept dodging the question on if he would ask for one.

This is a Judge. Any other answer from a Judge -- literally any other answer -- should lead to them being immediately removed from their seat and barred from gaining any seats whatsoever.

How to spot a psychopath right there.

YES. If you can prove it, then great! If they can even have such an appearance of impropriety as to even suggest that it might be true, then absolutely you should never allow them, ever, to be appointed to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justices should not merely know the law, they should be symbolic of the law -- because that is what is required of them.

So according to the FBI, based on interviews of every claimed first hand witness: "there is no corroboration of the allegations made by Dr. Ford or Ms. Ramirez." (Supplemental FBI Investigation Executive Summary)

I hope the judge code of conduct isn't ignored by Trump's other judge picks when Kav is confirmed.

Except for where one of the people who was there swore under oath that they 'believe her' in that it could have happened and that they would find it reasonable to suggest that it may have happened. That is weak corroboration.

Maybe they were holding themselves to it before but they may as well wear MAGA hats with their robes.

What? No it isn't. She said she "believed her" in the way that a friend might say they believe another friend. She flat out said that she never met Kavanaugh and has no recollection of the event.

except there has been plenty of signs and evidence that state otherwise.

Partisanship has gotten so ingrained into American Conservatism. A nominee can rant about Clinton and Leftist democrats being out to get him and GOP senators won't even bat an eye.

There are many reasons to suspect he committed said crime. No, that's not how sworn testimony works. She was testifying to whether or not she believed that event could've occurred -- not whether she found her friend 'believable'. If that's your position: Why in the world was Gorsuch not hounded with claims and was appointed to the court? If it's so easy to do -- literally why was not everyone doing it? Why has it not happened to all judges all the time? Here's the fast and simple occam's razor answer: Normally, these candidates are vetted in advance to ensure that only the squeaky-cleaniest of nominees even have a chance at the seat. And in that answer, we can find another answer: The same organization which vetted the other candidates on the shortlist for this seat had a great deal of difficulty finding it in themselves to recognize him as a 'good pick' and had great reservations on his nomination precisely because he was not in the slightest 'squeaky clean'.

Because they are in charge and are pissed beyond belief that Democrats and women aren't letting them do whatever they want.

(1) He lied under oath. (2) He lied under oath repeatedly about anything and everything that could even have a chance at smearing his character and good name. (3) He was willing to fake crying under oath. (4) He was absolutely livid and confrontational for someone simply asking him if he has ever blacked out due to drinking too much beer when he had just gotten through discussing how much he liked beer by stating over and over how much he liked beer and drank it. Given all that why is it: (a) Unreasonable to expect that he lied about the 'allegations against him being false'. when he has: (b) Shown to be an unreliable, hostile, witness who is willing to lie about anything and everything that makes him look bad much less would leave him in the dangerous waters of potential future criminal prosecution?

Here's an idea, maybe he didn't do it and that simply being accused of a crime does not constitute punishment. Novel I know.

oh and don't forget him trying to push that Ford was an agent implemented by the Democrats and there's a conspiracy to remove him from nomination. Which he quickly forgot about about a few minutes later and just viewed Ford as some random person.

Here's another idea: Maybe he won't receive literally any punishment.

His style of lying is, what we call in the business, a "devil's triangle". Not getting hired for a new job =/= punishment furthermore Not getting hired for one of the highest positions in the country =/= punishment

A person's "belief" is literally meaningless when she says she wasn't there and has no knowledge of the event, or person, in question. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about.

Testimony given under oath is evidence. Sworn testimony is evidence. She gave sworn testimony. Therefore she provided evidence. The evidence she provided was sworn testimony. How many ways do I have to restate this? Wrong. They investigated him ten years ago and had the exact same sorts of trouble and he was just as controversial then as he is now because the facts of his past do not mutate over time. Because Trump wills it and they need Trump's votes to keep themselves in power. Trump needs them in power to make himself unimpeachable and beyond any sort of prosecution or investigation. Kavanaugh is a judge who believes in giving Trump exactly that unimpeachability and denial of any sort of prosecution. Furthermore, a landmark case is coming up where it's expected the GOP will argue that 'in fact, the President's pardon powers do extend to forgiving State Crimes' -- which is the sort of case you would absolutely want Kavanaugh to hear if you want to have a better chance at the Supreme Court deciding 'yes, he has that power and right'.

Maybe he didn't, but we don't know. If he didn't do it, then why did he tell a lot of very obvious lies, and why would he be hesitant to recommend an investigation that could potentially clear his name?

She has knowledge of the background surrounding those people and other events that would suggest it likely. Character witnesses are a thing and can be brought in trial.

She says she didn't know Kavanaugh, and that she had never met him.

If we decided to just completely ignore the rape allegations Kavanaugh still shouldn't be appointed because he's obviously unfit for the position.

how dare you try to violate his constitutional right to become a supreme court judge

She doesn't need to know Kavanaugh to know of Kavanaugh. I've never met Bill Clinton - but from all the things I know about him if someone told me 'that guy enjoys dominating women' it would square with what I know -- which I could then state would be 'a believable claim' as, from the information I have, the claim checks out with what I know of that person.

... except she's made no such claim. You're just putting words in her mouth.

Right, and no one would give a single crap what you said because you have zero actual knowledge of the event.

Literally the only time I've heard of public calls to impeach a justice was when schools were desegregated under Earl Warren, maybe we'll see some impeachment signs in 2020 for Kav.

Why do we have to 'prove it as fact'? If a man is lying his god-damn ass off, why would you defend him such to say 'the things he's lying his ass off about probably didn't happen'. In fact, let's just go here: Let's choose to believe OJ is innocent. He claims he is. You have no 'facts' that prove it because there are no facts that 'proved it' in a court of criminal law. Therefore, since OJ is innocent of any crime, is it unreasonable for me to not want to appoint him to a position where he is judging trials regarding men who murdered their wives? If it isn't unreasonable: Why? If it is, also why?