She Actually Appeared

[No Swansong]

So you say. If only declaring it made it true, then you might have an excellent point. Your unsubstantiated, speculative, self aggrandizement comment is not substantive. Your self declaration of having more experience is certainly meritorious of a laugh, worthy of the characterization of joke and speculation, but unimpressive as anything else. Be sure to find a brass instrument the next time you want to boast about your vaunted expertise, so you can also proverbially "toot your own horn," while simultaneously typing your speculative, unknown, assertion your experience is greater than my own.



Oh for the love of....borrowing your logic, your statement above "belies your stated" inexperience. See, two can play your cute, meaningless, and nonsense game.

I selectively chose my words. I said, "I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford." Which is to say, I have never had ANY victim, already in a place secluded and relatively secure from her assailant, subsequently exit that location and enter a room where her assailant was known or believed to be located and walk past the assailant to exit the structure.



I could not care less what point conservatives are making or seeking to make. They have their argument. I have my own.



Your same commentary is equally applicable to Ms. Ford.



Not really. I am not concerned or particularly interested in knowing whether you believe Ms. Ford is or is not telling the truth, or whether you think she is or is not telling the truth. That's not information essential to my position or point of view.



Finally, some common ground, without any self aggrandizement by you.

So you say. If only declaring it made it true, then you might have an excellent point. Your unsubstantiated, speculative, self aggrandizement comment is not substantive. Your self declaration of having more experience is certainly meritorious of a laugh, worthy of the characterization of joke and speculation, but unimpressive as anything else. Be sure to find a brass instrument the next time you want to boast about your vaunted expertise, so you can also proverbially "toot your own horn," while simultaneously typing your speculative, unknown, assertion your experience is greater than my own.

You like the term "self aggrandizing" it appears you have forgotten that you were the first to bring up your 13 years of experience. You were not disregarded over your "self aggrandized" comment. As for my "speculative unknown assertion I worked with sexually battered women for close to 3 times your 13 years experience. And that work was mostly one on one and almost entirely counseling in nature. Whether you like it or not, I am educated and experienced in this issue. I am not self aggrandizing in any way. I am referring to my experience, which is substantial, which is the same thing you were doing with your "13 years" comment.

I selectively chose my words. I said, "I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford." Which is to say, I have never had ANY victim, already in a place secluded and relatively secure from her assailant, subsequently exit that location and enter a room where her assailant was known or believed to be located and walk past the assailant to exit the structure.

I can think of at least three cases in which the same thing occurred and should I review my notes I'm sure there were others.

Your same commentary is equally applicable to Ms. Ford.

Agreed, thus the reason I commented as I did.

Not really. I am not concerned or particularly interested in knowing whether you believe Ms. Ford is or is not telling the truth, or whether you think she is or is not telling the truth. That's not information essential to my position or point of view.

So you keep responding why?

Finally, some common ground, without any self aggrandizement by you.

See above.

 

[No Swansong]

And yet, how exactly does the article you link to demonstrate that "skillful prosecutors don't always bring forth the truth"?

You mean besides the fact that if they were wrongfully convicted then the truth wasn't revealed?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Convoluted.

Not even remotely convoluted...

 

[Kentonio]

No one is predicting a blue tide for mid terms because chances are it is going to be a red tide.

If by 'no one' you actually mean 'literally everyone except you and Donald Trump', then yes, no-one..

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, if his career depended on it, you might be right.

That is the party line... is it not?

I'd say that anyone who is unjustly accused of something like that would be wont to be that heated about his reputation, especially when there's nothing left if he's not confirmed. Can't teach anymore, can't be a judge anymore, life, finished.

Sounds like we must confirm him now... out of pity?

Good thing he never had a reputation for levelheadedness...

Yeah, would be nice if there were some details.

Kav kept great records of where he was and what he was doing, when and where.[/QUOTE]

be nice if we had some details of some of the work he did -- That's in the wind, but we've got his 30 year old alibi calendar.

 

[FreeinChrist]

It's great how the Democrats smash the rules when they want to get something done, yet, when the same rules are applied the other way, they scream bloody murder about it.

The Dems did not use the nuclear option for a SCOTUS pick. Republicans are the ones to take it that far. The Republicans would have used it for federal judges had they not gotten more numbers in the Senate in 2004.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not particularly.

His explanations about "Devil's Triangle", "Beach Week Ralph Club - Biggest Contributor", and "Renate Alumnus" were obvious lies. The Beach Week Ralph Club explanation was at least somewhat honest in that he admitted that "ralph" referred to vomiting.

He presents himself as being a normal, social drinker, but being self-described "Treasurer of the 100 Kegs or Bust" club, coupled with what many who knew him at the time have said (plenty of specific examples in the article), shows that his portrait of himself is deceptive. Again, the article gives plenty of specifics:

Examples: His answers about Devil's Triangle:

Q: Devil’s triangle?

KAVANAUGH: Drinking game.

Q: How’s it played?

KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.

The article goes into detail as to why this is a lie. Feel free to google Devil's Triangle and arrive at your own conclusion.

or his answers about Renate Alumnus:

"Renate Dolphin was a contemporary of Kavanaugh’s when he was at Georgetown Prep and she was at school nearby, and initially signed a letter supporting him. In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, some of the football players, including Kavanaugh, used the cryptic phrase “Renate Alumni.” Two ex-Georgetown Prep classmates told the New York Times that boys were bragging (truthfully or not, probably not) about sex with Renate. Sean Hagan said that Kavanaugh and his teammates “were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate. I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.” Dolphin herself didn’t know about the yearbook page when she signed the support letter, and when she discovered it was horrified:

I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago… I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.

But instead of admitting that they had been terrible to Renate, four of the football players said that the references to her in the yearbook “were intended to allude to innocent dates or dance partners.” Kavanaugh himself blamed the dirty-minded circus media for taking a sweet tribute and construing it as something obscene:

“That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.” … “She’s a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.”"

---

Again, let me be clear. It's not that he wrote these things in his high school yearbook that should disqualify him. They show him being immature in high school, and that shouldn't disqualify him from anything as an adult - it's that he lied about these things while under oath as part of this process that disqualify him. If he's willing to lie under oath, he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice.

Still convoluted. Do you really think that anyone who engages in Spring Break these days (and survives) and gets highest grades in college wouldn't be eligible to serve in the Supreme Court? I would say that most teens have made poor decisions (including Christine Blasey Ford and the woman who says she witnessed rapes various times (and kept on going!)). That doesn't disqualify them.

 

[NotreDame]

You mean besides the fact that if they were wrongfully convicted then the truth wasn't revealed?

Ah, you have implied a nonsequitur. A wrongful conviction can be based upon a lot of variables, and not necessarily the variable of the truth was not revealed or the prosecutor had the truth, knew the truth, but did not reveal the truth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

To the bold, that has never, in the history of the world, happened.

Fair enough... then is it too much to ask for a respectable minimum of baggage?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, let me be clear. It's not that he wrote these things in his high school yearbook that should disqualify him. They show him being immature in high school, and that shouldn't disqualify him from anything as an adult - it's that he lied about these things while under oath as part of this process that disqualify him. If he's willing to lie under oath, he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice.

Indeed... Donald's probably only putting him on SCOTUS in order to keep from running against him in the 2020 Primary. Friends close, enemies closer, and all that.

 

[No Swansong]

Ah, you have implied a nonsequitur. A wrongful conviction can be based upon a lot of variables, and not necessarily the variable of the truth was not revealed or the prosecutor had the truth, knew the truth, but did not reveal the truth.

is it your contention that most false convictions occur when the truth about the alleged crime is revealed? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion

 

[NotreDame]

is it your contention that most false convictions occur when the truth about the alleged crime is revealed? I'm genuinely interested in your opinion

It is my contention that to discover why an innocent person was convicted requires a careful examination of the entire trial record, from voir dire, to closing arguments, and subsequently any relevant appeals, on a case by case basis.

It is my contention one cannot logically conclude, as you did, that if an innocent man was wrongly convicted then the cause was the prosecutor concealed or hid the truth.

 

[No Swansong]

It is my contention that to discover why an innocent person was convicted requires a careful examination of the entire trial record, from voir dire, to closing arguments, and subsequently any relevant appeals, on a case by case basis.

It is my contention one cannot logically conclude, as you did, that if an innocent man was wrongly convicted then the cause was the prosecutor concealed or hid the truth.

thank you for sharing. Do you believe that prosecutors are more or less concerned with revealing the truth than with winning convictions.

 

[Aldebaran]

Fair enough... then is it too much to ask for a respectable minimum of baggage?

If the Dems would quit inventing baggage, then there wouldn't be any in the current case.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Fair enough... then is it too much to ask for a respectable minimum of baggage?

When your own party can produce some of the same, maybe you can ask for that. As it is, Kavanaugh is the best qualified, most honest and most respectable choice since, oh, Gorsuch.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As it is, Kavanaugh is the best qualified, most honest and most respectable choice since, oh, Gorsuch.

Well gee, given that he's the only choice since Gorsuch, that seems a low bar to set. If Trump were to nominate a chimpanzee, it would also be the best qualified, most honest and most respectable choice since Gorsuch...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well gee, given that he's the only choice since Gorsuch, that seems a low bar to set. If Trump were to nominate a chimpanzee, it would also be the best qualified, most honest and most respectable choice since Gorsuch...

I guess you haven't seen the list. No chimpanzees on there. Or was that a racist remark?

 

[Aldebaran]

I guess you haven't seen the list. No chimpanzees on there. Or was that a racist remark?

I don't think it can be racist if a democrat says it. At least that's the understanding I've gotten from watching the news.

 

[No Swansong]

I guess you haven't seen the list. No chimpanzees on there. Or was that a racist remark?

Grammatically he's correct, only one on the list of possibilities was a "choice".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I guess you haven't seen the list. No chimpanzees on there. Or was that a racist remark?

Since you specifically referenced Kavanaugh's honesty and respectability, I didn't realize you were referring to the list of possible candidates, upon which I'm certain that more honest and respectable judges than Kavanaugh may be found.