Tech Support Guy banner

Kavanaugh

13K views 138 replies 9 participants last post by  Johnny b 
#1 ·
Brett Kavanaugh. What has happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"
 
#3 ·
QUOTE="bomb #21, post: 9546276, member: 199685"]Prior to the accuser/accused hearings, where's the evidence that "devil's triangle" was/is a drinking game?

Where's the evidence that his life/family has been "totally destroyed"?

Liars shouldn't be SC judges. Case closed.[/QUOTE]

Which court of law did your brilliant "evidence" arrive at.
 
#4 · (Edited)
The first part of your post contains quote mangling. The last sentence looks like a question but there's no question mark at the end? Other than that, your post makes no sense.

FTR you're actually "talking" to someone who's been on the wrong end of false accusations, so I can assure you that, when that DOES happen, it IS a nightmare.

It's been pointed out MANY times that a senate hearing is NOT a court of law. Thus the OP is literally the definition of barking up the wrong tree. But, y'know, I suggest that the bigger picture be observed, by looking at questions such as "why life tenure?" and "why aren't seniorest judges appointed independently, as they are in the UK?". HTH

Edit: supplemental (rhetorical) question. There was an "investigation" after some guy named Flake said something about it being needed because the US was torn apart. Is it fixed now?
 
#5 ·
In the US, that only applies in the legal sense, where charges are brought.
Kavanaugh wasn't charged with anything. It was essentially an investigation of/for a job interview.

In the public, in the press, it's an issue of public opinion and malicious intent is dealt with by libel suits.
 
#6 ·
The accusations of sexual assault and drinking from 35+ years ago were iffy at best IMO. What really turned me sour on K was his demeanor during his last performance before the senate panel and his OBVIOUS political bias and his feeding into conspiracy theories. He doesn't perform well under pressure and seems or appeared to have an overt hatred of anything 'left' - not what I would consider an open mind. I would not want him on a jury if I were a defendant, much less a jurist. His view of the world is anarchic and backward IMO and he should not sit on SCOTUS. He and his ilk will return us to a past history of abuses that have no place in a modern progressive world. The entire Trump administration seems hell bent on returning us to the 50's and is regressive and hateful in it's whole.
 
#10 ·
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5, 2018 - The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee today telling them that the evaluation of Brett Kavanaugh was being reopened due to new information of a material nature regarding temperament during from Kavanaugh's September 27 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/10/aba_standing_committ.html
 
#12 ·
There were 6 BIs done during the course of Kavanaugh's Federal career. I find it hard to believe the accused behaviors and incidents were missed. If anyone here has ever filled out an SF86 along with having to go through what Kavanaugh had gone through for his SSBI, you would know either OPM or the FBI are very very thorough.

I lead a very boring life and during my interview with my adjudicator, he had a thick file on me. It's pretty clear from people's stances on those that have been through such a background investigation and those that have not.

In addition, his reaction is to be expected. Granted he went a bit overboard in some respects but I challenge any of you to keep a calm demeanor in the face of such accusations affecting your Federal employment. I've worked in Federal circles for over two decades at various Federal agencies. I know what the consequences are if you're accused of something and the uphill battle one is going to face to clear yourself of such charges.

If those of you who are still dissatisfied with the outcome of the recent targeted FBI investigation and the 6 BIs Kavanaugh went through, then you should be complaining to your local representatives that the system in place used by DoD, OPM, and FBI is broken.
 
#13 ·
With respect, I don't see the relevance of alluding to supposed dissatisfaction with investigations when no-one in this thread's even mentioned said investigations.

You say he went a bit overboard. If I say he was at times unhinged, should we then start a poll? The two words that jump out at me are "calm demeanour". I won't say he threw a tantrum because, as he stated, everything he said was planned - by him. I submit that to decide to (let's say) go on to the extent where the "performance" can easily be characterised (rightly or wrongly) by commentators as a partisan rant can hardly be considered judicious. That said, he absolutely lost it at times by his own admission (see apology to Klobuchar).

IMO some of the prevarication (and there was plenty) was INCREDIBLE. At times I half-expected (Mike Myers as) Wayne to interject "Do we have to put up with this? Can't we get a better nominee? It's an important role, and could last a while". Thus I find myself in agreement with former Justice Stevens that his "performance" (alone) should disqualify him from Supreme-ness.

Cheers. (I don't like beer)
 
#14 ·
Because you brought up points about things pointing to his unsuitability to perform or hold the position of SC. The BIs he's been through creates a whole picture of whether the person is fit to hold a clearance or a sensitive position in the Federal government. This is the whole person concept which is at the heart of what is done as an adjudication of the person's application.

This is why I say those who are still crying about or pointing to supposed judgement issues such as heavy drinking don't know anything about how background investigations are done for positions of trust. Hence my remark that if you are not satisifies with the 6 BIs Kavanaugh has been through and the targeted FBI investigation demanded by some senators, then you should be complaining to your local representatives that the current system used by OPM, FBI, and DoD is broken in your eyes.

Again, many of you have no idea the level of scrutiny which goes into these BIs. If you want to educate yourselves about what is involved, download a copy of the SF86. The SF86 is just a starting point for how investigators create a picture of who you are. The last clearance I held costs $80k for someone going through the process the first time. Periodic updates cost $40k. These investigations are not your simple criminal background checks nor applying for a loan.
 
#15 ·
Here's more information for those that even care about educating yourselves behind what happens in background investigations and adjudications:

http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/

Also, in your consent to go through the process of being vetted, you are made aware that if through the course of doing the BI the investigators find something which breaks any law, you can be handed over to the proper authorities for prosecution.
 
#16 ·
ZX is correct about the BI process, I have been through that grinder while obtaining a high level clearance for the U.S. Military. Too bad my SF86 information was stolen along with millions of others... sigh... but that is a different subject entirely.

I have to comment on the liberal mantra of the Supreme Court nomination process being a job interview and not a court of law. While this is true, it is also true that the United States was founded on the principals of innocent until proven guilty, which is a thought process that is weaved throughout our society and history. This core principle of our society is what makes the law work. Now I fully understand that the liberals in this country have successfully removed morality from our school system, or at least made morality subjective; but, the thought process of innocent until proven guilty will not be so easily gutted from society.

As for the temperament argument, give me a break please. I could just as easily say the same thing about every politician on capital hill, regardless of political party, and probably every liberal/conserative judge in the country. Does that mean the we should scrap everything and raise up a monarchy?

When I attempt to look at this from a Democrat's point-of-view... The Democrat politicians on capitol hill completely struck out and failed their constituency. They either staged false leaks and accusations and made a mockery of the Supreme Court nomination process, or they failed to stop a drug pushing, gang rapist from being sworn into the Supreme Court. Either way, an epic failure by the Democrats. ;)
 
#18 · (Edited)
ZX is correct about the BI process, I have been through that grinder while obtaining a high level clearance for the U.S. Military. Too bad my SF86 information was stolen along with millions of others... sigh... but that is a different subject entirely.

I have to comment on the liberal mantra of the Supreme Court nomination process being a job interview and not a court of law. While this is true, it is also true that the United States was founded on the principals of innocent until proven guilty, which is a thought process that is weaved throughout our society and history. This core principle of our society is what makes the law work. Now I fully understand that the liberals in this country have successfully removed morality from our school system, or at least made morality subjective; but, the thought process of innocent until proven guilty will not be so easily gutted from society.

As for the temperament argument, give me a break please. I could just as easily say the same thing about every politician on capital hill, regardless of political party, and probably every liberal/conserative judge in the country. Does that mean the we should scrap everything and raise up a monarchy?

When I attempt to look at this from a Democrat's point-of-view... The Democrat politicians on capitol hill completely struck out and failed their constituency. They either staged false leaks and accusations and made a mockery of the Supreme Court nomination process, or they failed to stop a drug pushing, gang rapist from being sworn into the Supreme Court. Either way, an epic failure by the Democrats. ;)
The OP has 2 subjects - 1, Kavanaugh ; 2, What has happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"

Since the OP doesn't seem particularly bothered, may I suggest we keep this thread to subject 1? While you may feel compelled to throw in liberalism, morality and Dems performance, I can't see that facilitating effective discussion. Thanks. :)
 
#27 ·
This is exactly right. A situation which unfortunately has politics involved but should have never gone to the extent it had.

You can beat that tune till the cows come home but it won't change the fact that Kavanaugh was not indicted on any charges, facing a court of law.

Anyone can have an opinion about anything and that includes guilt and innocence.
They can think it and even state that opinion.

What can't be said is Kavanaugh was found guilty ( as, in a court of law ). :rolleyes:

Let's face a reality. Everything posted at this forum is really an opinion until specified a fact.
Anyone remember the 1st Amendment?

Let's kill it and get right with Amerika :rolleyes: ( sarcasm for the jackboot element )

Can't have the peeps thinking badly of their politicians and appointments :D
Yes. Kavanaugh was not found guilty of anything. Things brought forth during this circus didn't arise to the level where the FBI acted on it. Lost in all this mess is the fact that if any of the allegations had any ounce of truth, the FBI is compelled as a law enforcement agency to continue steps to bring Kavanaugh to prosecution in court.

Also, allegations like this are serious in the Federal circles and have far reaching implications that go beyond just being denied for the position one is going for or holding. bomb #21 professes to have experienced being falsely accused. This person has no idea what even a flippant statement could do to one's Federal career. The 1st Amendment is certainly everyone's right. But with this process, the 1st Amendment has limitations. Such as no one is allowed to yell "Fire" or "Bomb" in a public venue with none of those threats present.

Alcohol consumption could be one, but imo, the significance isn't on the amount but on the effects which became a he said/she said issue, that wouldn't stand up as 'evidence' in a court room.

This was bad imagery from both anti and pro Kavanaugh political positions.
This would have come up as a risk factor in the 6 BIs Kavanaugh went through. It would have brought severe questions about Kavanaugh's suitability to hold the positions of high public trust. It would have created doubts around his judgement and his ability to perform his job.
 
#22 ·
Anyone remember the 1st Amendment?

Let's kill it and get right with Amerika :rolleyes: ( sarcasm for the jackboot element )

Can't have the peeps thinking badly of their politicians and appointments :D
 
#25 ·
Alcohol consumption could be one, but imo, the significance isn't on the amount but on the effects which became a he said/she said issue, that wouldn't stand up as 'evidence' in a court room.

This was bad imagery from both anti and pro Kavanaugh political positions.
 
#30 ·
Lost in all this mess is the fact that if any of the allegations had any ounce of truth, the FBI is compelled as a law enforcement agency to continue steps to bring Kavanaugh to prosecution in court.
I agree in principle, but the FBI investigation was limited in scope and interviewees. It paces a question mark not on the FBI, but on what their orders contained.
That, the public will likely never know.

Now it's a done deal and all over but the whining.
As valis has pointed out several time, society votes in the politics of the day.
If anything is to be done, society has to vote them out 'tomorrow'.
Will they?
I don't know.
 
#74 ·
Below. Which I've gone on to explain why the investigations are very relevant to refuting your statement he lied. Yet every time I've asked for your proof as to how he lied/perjured himself, I get smoke and mirrors with hiding behind minor semantics you would rather bring up versus addressing my the ask for proof.

With respect, I don't see the relevance of alluding to supposed dissatisfaction with investigations when no-one in this thread's even mentioned said investigations.

You say he went a bit overboard. If I say he was at times unhinged, should we then start a poll? The two words that jump out at me are "calm demeanour". I won't say he threw a tantrum because, as he stated, everything he said was planned - by him. I submit that to decide to (let's say) go on to the extent where the "performance" can easily be characterised (rightly or wrongly) by commentators as a partisan rant can hardly be considered judicious. That said, he absolutely lost it at times by his own admission (see apology to Klobuchar).

IMO some of the prevarication (and there was plenty) was INCREDIBLE. At times I half-expected (Mike Myers as) Wayne to interject "Do we have to put up with this? Can't we get a better nominee? It's an important role, and could last a while". Thus I find myself in agreement with former Justice Stevens that his "performance" (alone) should disqualify him from Supreme-ness.

Cheers. (I don't like beer)
 
#90 ·
#91 ·
Not unexpected.

This is exactly why that FBI investigation should not have had restrictions built into it.
Kavanaugh should have been cleared or excluded, either way with absolute confidence for all parties involved, especially the public.

As it stands, Kavanaugh will always carry an element of distrust whether justified or not.

The term 'he did a Kavanaugh' will become a political descriptor in the future.
 
#94 ·
I realize this is petty, but Kavanaugh did claim in his spiel:
"Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,"
https://www.google.com/search?q=refuted&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
That didn't happen. Ford's claims were neither proven nor disproven. No other ones there remembered.

A Judge would know that :cool:
A Judge should know that.

A few other statements exist. But now it's all over except for the whining and it appears that exists with both sides, although for different reasons :D
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top