ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , legal eagle

Reply
Old 11th July 2019, 05:39 PM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,763
Legal Eagle on Kavanaugh Hearing.

I watched some of the Kavanaugh hearings last year. I was appalled that anyone would think that Kavanaugh would make a suitable judge in any court when he was so evasive and unable to keep his emotions in check.

Over the last few months I've watched various videos on the Legal Eagle's channel; he is entertaining to say the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTDZDpdJFM

Below are some of his comments (paraphrased by me) on Kavanaugh's hearing, some of them regarding Ford's accusations.

Quote:
Did Kavanaugh actually commit perjury? No. The Democrat Senators failed to pin down Kavanaugh on specific definitions and catch him on definite falsehoods. They failed to ask follow-up questions. They could have nailed him down on definitions of terms. A devil's triangle is a threesome with two men and one woman, not a drinking game. It's more likely that Kavanaugh is a puker (ralpher) from drinking not spicy food. The people who opposed Kavanaugh's domination were asking questions but failing to follow up properly. They couldn't even get Kavanaugh to answer yes or no.

Did Kavanaugh display a judge-like temperament? He is hot headed and takes partisan stances. Kavanaugh made his character an issue, so the Democrats had free rein to question it.

Would Kavanaugh prevent investigations of White House? Kavanaugh most recently argued that the president should be immune from criminal and civil actions. But during the Clinton years, he did not oppose this treatment of the president.

Would Ford's allegations hold up in court? He said, she said; doubtful that it would.

Should Kavanaugh have requested an investigation into his conduct regarding Ford's allegation. No client should ask for an investigation. Duh.
What do you guys think of the video? It's 23 minutes long, but worth the look I think.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 11th July 2019 at 05:40 PM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2019, 05:51 PM   #2
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,490
IANAL, but I like his channel. He is either a reasonable guy who takes an academic, non-partisan approach or he has me thoroughly fooled.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 10:44 AM   #3
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,170
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Over the last few months I've watched various videos on the Legal Eagle's channel; he is entertaining to say the least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTDZDpdJFM
I have seen some of his videos before (where he was talking about the legal accuracy of various TV shows and movies.) Thought that stuff was interesting.

Unfortunately can't watch his videos right now, so any comments I make will be based on your quotes.
Quote:
Did Kavanaugh actually commit perjury? No. The Democrat Senators failed to pin down Kavanaugh on specific definitions and catch him on definite falsehoods.
Wouldn't a determination of whether he committed perjury depend on what the actual facts were (rather than what the Democrats were able to 'pin him down' on)?

I mean, if he claimed "the sky is red", even if the Democrats weren't able to show (at the time) he was lying, it would still be perjury.
Quote:
They failed to ask follow-up questions. They could have nailed him down on definitions of terms. A devil's triangle is a threesome with two men and one woman, not a drinking game. It's more likely that Kavanaugh is a puker (ralpher) from drinking not spicy food.
Unfortunately, to 'nail' him over any of these, they would have needed the opportunity to do some research, which (thanks to the Republicans efforts to cram through the confirmation) they were not able to do.
Quote:
Would Ford's allegations hold up in court? He said, she said; doubtful that it would.
Two issues here:
- True, during the hearings it was a case of 'he said/she said', which probably wouldn't hold up in court. But in an actual court case (where a proper investigation was held) there would likely have been more evidence provided. (Instead, the republicans cut short any sort of fact finding.) So it wouldn't be a 'he said/she said', it would be a 'he said/she said/these eye witnesses said/these written records said/etc.'

- It wasn't a court case. it was a confirmation hearing (essentially a job interview). The burden of proof is substantially lower

Quote:
Should Kavanaugh have requested an investigation into his conduct regarding Ford's allegation. No client should ask for an investigation. Duh.
That I'm curious about.

If a person were completely innocent, then why wouldn't they want an investigation to 'clear their name'? After all, convicts regularly ask for their cases to be reopened (and things like DNA tests done).
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 10:50 AM   #4
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,447
Christine Ford made a good amount of money from GoFundMe on this sham
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 10:57 AM   #5
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
If a person were completely innocent, then why wouldn't they want an investigation to 'clear their name'?
Let's say Kavanaugh is completely innocent, but he still has accusers. What does he have to gain at all if there is no one to back up his claims of innocence? If there is an investigation and Kavanaugh gives any statements at all, they can be used against him. If he says nothing, it can't be used against him by law enforcement, but the court of public opinion will most likely find him guilty as "he refused to cooperate" so he must "have something to hide".

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
After all, convicts regularly ask for their cases to be reopened (and things like DNA tests done).
Kavanaugh was accused, he was not indicted or convicted.

Last edited by Ranb; 12th July 2019 at 11:00 AM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 10:57 AM   #6
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,134
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Christine Ford made a good amount of money from GoFundMe on this sham
Oh please. That has what to do with her being truthful? Are you capable of posting something of substance?
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 11:28 AM   #7
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,170
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Let's say Kavanaugh is completely innocent, but he still has accusers. What does he have to gain at all if there is no one to back up his claims of innocence? If there is an investigation and Kavanaugh gives any statements at all, they can be used against him.
But any investigation would not be focused on obtaining more of his testimony, it would be focused on obtaining statements from other eye witnesses and/or documents related to the case.
Quote:
If he says nothing, it can't be used against him by law enforcement, but the court of public opinion will most likely find him guilty as "he refused to cooperate" so he must "have something to hide".
But that's already happened... his refusal to say "yes, investigate and get to the bottom of it" makes it already seem like he has "something to hide".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 01:25 PM   #8
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,808
I just discovered his channel a few days ago too. I thought the same thing. The Democrats let themselves get played and Kavanaugh, irrespective of the charges of sexual assault, looked very poor. Under normal circumstances, he would have never even been considered. He was an emotional wreck, is of sketchy credentials, and spouted some bizarre conspiracy theory during a job interview.
__________________
SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2019, 04:27 PM   #9
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,367
Re the Democrats being played, the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on old white guys. Just look at Biden's running the Anita Hill hearings.

The GOP had the votes to confirm Kavanaugh despite the hearing.

Remember an actual investigation was squelched. (multiple post-hearing sources)

Kavanaugh perjured himself. Here are his top lies. (with the evidence)
For example:
Quote:
Kavanaugh’s claim: Judge Kavanaugh’s central defense is that all four witnesses Dr. Ford identified as being present at the party have said that the sexual assault “did not happen.”

What Kavanaugh actually said: “Just on one thing, Mr. Chairman – the evidence is not corroborated at the time. The witnesses who were there say that it didn’t happen.”

The reality: This is not true. Only one person has said that the sexual assault did not happen—Brett Kavanaugh. The other three party attendees that Dr. Ford identified simply did not say that.

Mark Judge said “I have no memory of this alleged incident.” In a letter yesterday, Judge said “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford.”
P.J. Smyth said “I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct.”
Leyland Keyser said that she has “no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford” but that she believes Dr. Ford.
Given this, and suggesting the Democrats never brought out any actual perjury, it suggests Legal Eagle has presented biased evidence.

More evidence in the link documents Kavanaugh's drinking problem and his mistreatment of women in high school and college, both of which he lied about under oath.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 12th July 2019 at 04:32 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:44 AM   #10
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,396
I have no love for Kavanaugh, and I think he was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, and if he could be Impeached along with Trump I'd be all for it, but...

having said that, if your strongest evidence of perjury, and I'm assuming it is your strongest since you used it as an example, is the difference between "The witnesses say it didn't happen," and "The witnesses say they don't recall it happening," well... you are going to have a very hard job pushing that rock uphill.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:21 AM   #11
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,464
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I have no love for Kavanaugh, and I think he was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, and if he could be Impeached along with Trump I'd be all for it, but...

having said that, if your strongest evidence of perjury, and I'm assuming it is your strongest since you used it as an example, is the difference between "The witnesses say it didn't happen," and "The witnesses say they don't recall it happening," well... you are going to have a very hard job pushing that rock uphill.
If a typical member of the public said that, then I wouldn't think it's perjury. It's loose talk under oath.

If a lawyer says it, he knows better. Kavanaugh knows the difference between "witnesses say it didn't happen" and "no witness recalls it happening." Unless he's an exceptionally incompetent attorney, he blatantly lied under oath.

I have no opinion about whether one could convict him of perjury, but every law-trained senator knows damned well that he lied under oath during a Senate hearing regarding his confirmation. Most voted for confirmation anyway.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:26 AM   #12
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,367
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I have no love for Kavanaugh, and I think he was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, and if he could be Impeached along with Trump I'd be all for it, but...

having said that, if your strongest evidence of perjury, and I'm assuming it is your strongest since you used it as an example, is the difference between "The witnesses say it didn't happen," and "The witnesses say they don't recall it happening," well... you are going to have a very hard job pushing that rock uphill.
No, did you watch the hearing? His calendar that was easily shown to have been changed or completely fabricated is one example. His claim of not having a drinking problem, also refuted by multiple witnesses. There were a lot of reports from multiple sources that Kavanaugh denied.

Here are more lies even though the conclusion of these 'legal scholars': "Conclusion? It’s probably not perjury."

Vox: The Brett Kavanaugh perjury controversy, explained by 4 legal scholars

The 'scholars' are using the excuse maybe it wasn't "willful lying". That's bull ****. That was in his earlier confirmation hearing.


Those are not all of his lies under oath.

Vox updated: Did Brett Kavanaugh perjure himself? The debate, explained. - We keep having to talk about whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.
Quote:
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: … In the New Yorker.

HATCH: Did the ranking member [Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)] or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations before they were leaked to the press?

KAVANAUGH: No.

However, two friends of Kavanaugh’s — Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage — were in contact with the Supreme Court nominee and his team, according to text messages obtained by NBC:
So there are text messages, not just witnesses which are evidence of his lying in the hearing.

Quote:
These text messages detailing Kavanaugh’s knowledge of Ramirez’s allegations aren’t the first time his truthfulness has come into question. Here are five other instances where discrepancies in Kavanaugh’s testimonies have been raised.

1) Kavanaugh’s drinking: ...

2) His yearbook:... As Vox’s Alex Abad-Santos explained, the word “boof,” a slang term that many have defined to mean anal sex, Kavanaugh defined as “flatulence.” Asked about the phrase “Devil’s Triangle,” which commonly refers to sex between two men and one woman, Kavanaugh said it was a drinking game akin to Quarters.

3) Kavanaugh’s involvement in the nomination of a controversial anti-Roe v. Wade judge: ...

4) There’s also the case of the improperly obtained Democratic files, detailing strategies for opposing Bush’s judicial nominees in the 2000s, which a Republican Senate aide circulated with White House staff. ...

5) Democrats have also tried to interrogate Kavanaugh’s possible involvement in the Bush administration torture policy. As Vox’s Li Zhou explained, in 2006 Kavanaugh said, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants … and so I do not have the involvement with that.” However, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) cited two news reports that said Kavanaugh was present at a meeting on whether US enemy combatants should be given lawyers while they are being detained. ...

Kavanaugh, IMO, did a poor impression of Clarence Thomas' faux outrage.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; Yesterday at 05:30 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:32 AM   #13
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,367
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If a typical member of the public said that, then I wouldn't think it's perjury. It's loose talk under oath.

If a lawyer says it, he knows better. Kavanaugh knows the difference between "witnesses say it didn't happen" and "no witness recalls it happening." Unless he's an exceptionally incompetent attorney, he blatantly lied under oath.

I have no opinion about whether one could convict him of perjury, but every law-trained senator knows damned well that he lied under oath during a Senate hearing regarding his confirmation. Most voted for confirmation anyway.
And this was for the SCOTUS. What a low bar the GOP have now set.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:07 AM   #14
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,401
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Wouldn't a determination of whether he committed perjury depend on what the actual facts were (rather than what the Democrats were able to 'pin him down' on)?

I mean, if he claimed "the sky is red", even if the Democrats weren't able to show (at the time) he was lying, it would still be perjury.
In this case, I think the bar for successfully establishing perjury would have been very high. His answers, like almost everything Trump says, were formulated to leave some tiny shred of "plausible deniability". Even if the denial wouldn't be plausible to an actually reasonable imaginary neutral person.

Do you remember when Donald Trump claimed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya? Then you remember incorrectly. All of his public statements were framed as questions or things he heard other people supposedly claim. Now. Trump and Cavanaugh obvious both do outright lie, but they do a whole lot more formulating things that give them room to deny having made any stance. Kavanaughs phrasing and framing contained enough weasel words and sloppiness that a case for perjury would be difficult.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.