His "stellar record" included lying under oath to congress in 2004 and 2006. In any reasonable period of history, that would have been enough to disqualify him.Congress was only allowed to see 80% of his "stellar record" as a lawyer working for the Bush administration, at a time when the administration authorised massive eavesdropping on citizens and, you know, torture. What was in the other 20%?
@goaded yeah at least Obama didn't incarcerate terror suspects, he just assassinated them with drones.
Kavanaugh might have had a say in the supposed legality of that, too.http://news.BBC.co.uk/2/hi/2402479.stm" Tuesday, 5 November, 2002, 07:16 GMT "" America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out an attack in Yemen that killed six suspected members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, according to US officials. "
Now you're just pointing out that the US is a shitty country when it comes to human rights, what's your point?Mine is that Kavanaugh worked for Bush on the team fighting Bush v. Gore, then all through the time they started mass surveillance of US citizens, tortured people and started using drone attacks in foreign countries. Any or all of which he could have been forming legal arguments for, in the 20% of documents that the White House kept out of sight of the members of the Senate Judicial Committee.And the Republicans, to a Senator, voted to confirm someone who was proven to have lied under oath, which 20 years ago they thought was enough to impeach a sitting president.
Are you suggesting Bill Cosby was wrongly convicted?
Possibly, but I do think he did something
Yes, he drugged and assaulted multiple women, including one recent enough to have not gone past the statute of limitations.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
At this point i am pretty sure it is, the accusation was vague and the people testifying did not back it up. On top of that there is a politically motivated reason behind the allegation which means the only reason it was brought up in the first place was so the democrats could have there way. Its safe to assume its a false claim, but if you don't want to go that far a more correct way of calling it would be a claim without evidence.
@sawno I don't think it's necessarily false. What it doesn't have is evidence, which the problem with that is, is the timeline. However, just because something has political motivation doesn't mean it's a false claim. It means they're weaponizing a claim, which is terrible, but it doesn't mean the woman wasn't raped.
With the case we can't conclude if she was raped or not, but we can quite safely conclude it wasn't in the scenario she was providing given the majority of witnesses did not back her up on her story.
@sawno Indeed, but again, that doesn't mean something didn't happen. I think it's false to call it a false claim unless it came out there was a proven conspiracy or she admitted it. I'm not saying it was true, but I'm certainly not going to say its false either.
That is fair, it stems to how far you are willing to go in an assumption.Clearly for me that a bit further then it is for you.So lets agree its a claim without evidence where he should not be seen as a rapist or as someone who is guilty.
@sawno I do not think he should be considered a rapist, but I wouldn't be the one to put someone accused of rape in a position of power if I had the decision. It's bad association and it's going to be damaging for the republicans as they will be seen as rapist sympathizers, whether or not he is actually guilty.
I disagree, the man isn't convicted of anything.It would mean deplatforming culture is effective where you can influence entire nations just by making a false allegation. We would then see rape claims on anyone with power true or not for the sheer basis of riling up society against them which sets an incredibly dangerous president. The founder of the linux foundation is never alone with women in a conference for that specific reason, he always wants to have a witness that NOTHING happened.
@sawno It doesn't matter if he's convicted, what matters is there was a very public battle with a witness who seemed genuine and the FBI was involved. His name is ruined now whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
Yes, his name is ruined now. But name ruining should not be an effective tactic because then we will see that much more often. By taking a firm stance on this matter that the claim holds no evidence and appointing him because of it not only restores his reputation a bit it also means that these tactics are proven ineffective and won't be repeated as easily.
@sawno I'm not saying it should, I'm saying it is. Either way, the Republicans are going to look bad. I don't make or necessarily agree with the rules, but considering the guy in charge, America looks like an anti-woman, rape-supporting, anti-victim shitheap to most people outside of it. Doesn't mean it is, but it's being painted that way.
I am not American and i would consider it a just action to appoint him even if i disagree with some of his earlier rulings. Instead i see the democrats as a vile bunch who will stop at nothing to obtain power even if it destroys the entire democratical system of the country.
It wasn’t proven true
@Rissyanne I never stated it was, but it also wasn't proven false. Also, I know you for being a crusty cuntbag anyway so I don't personally give a shit about anything you care about or have to say.
Right out of the liberals play book lol name calling... then are you going to threaten me?
@Rissyanne You keep saying that, but when has anyone ever threatened you on here?
@goaded there have been a couple but one comes to mind. He was a big trump hating liberal. I just politely said that I appreciated all the work he was doing to help Trump... his rhetoric. Then he said if he ever saw me on the street he would smash my face in. Go ahead and defend him I know you will.
@Rissyanne Why would I? I trust you reported him.
@goaded yes I did.
"but I wouldn't be the one to put someone accused of rape in a position of power if I had the decision."Then it's a good thing you DON"T have the decision. Because it would mean that no one would EVER get appointed. The opposition would simply make an allegation, and kill the nomination.
You give me hope that the new generation are not all retards.
So: And your proof that she lied is? ... You have no proof that she lied, and there is plenty of reason to believe she told the truth.
@markscott The children of the lie are not happy!!! XD We got a live one folks!!
So: It seems you may be just like the lying president, who likes to denigrate and spread hate. What hole is there in the soul of a person who has to do that, and who is a follower of a person who does that?
@markscott What did the great white hope lie about? Enlighten me.
So: Just for starters, he lied about seeing thousands of Muslims happily demonstrating in the streets of Newark, on 9/11. And he lied about the access hollywood tapes. First he apologized for what he said, then later, he said it was not him on the tape. A lie. Can you honestly picture Trump apologizing for something he didn't do? But in reality, Trump has lied and lied and lied. If you haven't seen that, it's because you don't want to see it. I haven't time to give information to the willful blind.
@markscott You are a child of the lie and a beta male now All of what you just said are media induced lies
@markscott Actually, no. there is NO evidence to back up her story, and a great deal of evidence to suggest it's fabricated.
Sososinaxoxo: It's good that I run across people like you. It makes me understand how Trump can fool so many people. As PT Barnum supposedly said: "There is a sucker born every minute."
@markscott don't you live under a dictatorship in Egypt that persecuted Coptic?
Sososinaxoxo: Much of what I said Trump lied about, is on tape. It really takes some delusional thinking, some real immersion into the Trump Cult, to believe that tapes lies, and to directly see and hear Trump say something, then he lies about it later, and believe Trump told the truth all along. That's more like Jim Jones and his cult, than any thing else.
... he is being put in by Trump for his own protection and to support his agenda. God willing, both will die a roadkill's death... Hopefully soon.
Me too. To win, he'd have to prove the women's claims false, and they would get to bring all the people the FBI didn't interview as witnesses to testify under oath.I can't see that happening, can you?
@goaded no he has not. He's innocent until proven otherwise. That's how the law works.
Your response doesn't match my comment. If he wants to sue, he'll have to take them to court, to try to prove they're lying, and they'd be allowed to defend themselves.
@goaded if u speak about him, to win he will have to prove she has no proof. U can't find an evidence or a witness to something that has never happened.
You're wrong."in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant: made a *false* and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff..."
@goaded if you think Judge Brett is a plaintiff, you're a bloke, you know that? =DDDD
What are you talking about?"I hope he will sue them..." If he sues someone, he's the "plaintiff claiming defamation".
@goaded these are just my hopes but ofc he will not sue them as the GOP won't let him. All the story was a legal dead end where nobody was able to proove anything and there was no legal charge actually so it's just a distraction media campaign, cheers.
@goaded plus I believe he can sue the media that witchhunted hime
He won't sue the women or the media because he doesn't have a case.
@goaded the women for sure, but I don't know how bout united states, but smearing campaign based on rumors must be a crime.
They were reporting the facts.
@goaded nah all they were reporting was "one woman says and the other man says". Just a ton of biased political bullsh1t. Almost all the people said different stuff during the FBI interview.
Those were the facts, and nobody knows what was said in the FBI "investigation" unless they've been in the room with the report. We do know that they didn't interview many people at all.
@goaded dude according to your details you're a 53 y. o. grandpa with 11% mho. That means you have no clue, honestly. I believe you're just trolling, b'coz only <11% clueless people would believe the MSM TV bullcrap.
That's the best argument you've got? Wow.
@goaded dude your best arguments are the BBC newsfeed, so your ones suck as hell. There's a good saying of Trump regarding all the story: "The democrates will never win as they are just mob. In the USA there will be always the rule of the law, not the rule of the mob"
The FBI interviewed 9 people regarding 2 of the 3 accusations. Do you dispute that fact?Do you dispute that the person who sues for defamation has to prove the defendant was lying? Or that they'd be known as the plaintiff?
@goaded dude if you don't understand something it's not my duty to explain you. Go learn or sumthin. Even the FBI knew the absurd of the issue, so they wouldn't put much effort. It's not an FBI job to investigate "he was laying on me" allegations hahaha. Go jerk or something, you'll feel easier.
Not that great at losing arguments, are you? Even though you must have had lots of practice. :)
@goaded He raises some excellent points. You always seem more relaxed and easy going when you've rubbed one out.
@goaded like you had any...
@WhitePanther88, dude, there are paid trolls, bots everywhere, don't waste your time, dude. The whole Hillary campaign was fueled by the army of facebook bots when IRL they had like dozens of people at her rally vs thousands at Trumps'. And after that they blame Russia for hacking. So don't waste your time arguing with the bot army hehe =D
Bested by a bot? How sad for you.@WhitePanther88 What excellent points? He literally made no points, just said the judge should sue the women and the media, and insulted me when I pointed out exactly why that could never happen.
@goaded yeah I believe that was a misunderstanding in the beginning. I just hoped he would've sued them all. However, obviously it's a hard work. But the moral damage was done, so, at least the media should account for that.
Yes and I can’t wait to watch it on YouTube
I wrote this in response to another opinion, but I'll repeat:Have a look at the history of supreme court nominations; there has always been the option of a filibuster, nominees have always had a timely hearing, and the appointee has always passed with a considerable number of opposition votes. Until now, and that's not because of the Democrats.en. wikipedia. org/.../List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
@goaded What just happened is qualitatively different from what has happened before, with the exception of the Clarence Thomas confirmation, another shining moment of Democrat lunacy. The results will become obvious next month.
Liberals have lost their minds. Threatening people in elevators. This is costing George Soros a fortune
Since it happened to Clarence Thomas before, it's not new (along with the limited FBI report). Not even hearing a president's nominee was unheard of. Not allowing filibusters was unheard of.@Rissyanne Where do I sign up for my share of the Soros money?
@goaded if you don’t believe Soros is backing liberals you are delusional
@markscott Of course. When it comes to Kavanaugh, we dims use the same way of proving truth, from false lies. With Trump, if the news praises him, it's false. If the news doesn't praise him, it's true. The same goes for Kavanaugh. If the information praises him, it's false. If it does not praise Kavanaugh, it's true. It's a very simple way dims can determine truth from false.
Have a look at the history of supreme court nominations; there has always been the option of a filibuster, nominees have always had a timely hearing, and the appointee has always passed with a considerable number of opposition votes. Until now, and that's not because of the Democrats.en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Without evidence and simply because he was going to become a supreme court judge
Bill Clinton isn't president anymore
No girls voted C yet though lol.