
Please continue the Kavanaugh discussion here.
|
Where is the Kavanaugh section of the prosecutor's report? |
I posted this near the end of thread 3. I’m curious what Kavanaugh supporters think, particularly of the last paragraph.
“I honestly don’t know who is telling the truth. I don’t believe her blindly, but I also don’t think she’s involved in some big conspiracy (even if one is happening around her.) And certainly some people screwed the pooch procedurally here. All that said, his behavior on Thursday was absolutely horrific and completely unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice. He is hot tempered and blatantly partisan. Yes, lots of people in the room were being partisan, but he was the only one trying to become a Supreme Court Justice.” As I’ve said before, if he had been polite and answered the questions cordially and directly, this would all be over. He has humiliated himself and shown he can’t remain calm and impartial in tense situations.” |
Can someone post a copy of the Rachel Mitchell memo that was released last night? |
You can read it at this link. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/evidence-doesn-t-support-claims-against-kavanaugh-judiciary-committee-prosecutor-n915236 |
I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.
The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct. How bizarre. |
Up until this morning I felt the same way as you, I didn't necessarily know who was telling the truth. After the Rachel Mitchell memo I am inclined to believe BK. there are too many loopholes in her story some of which make me think she is intentionally being dishonest. That being said I think his explanations of the meanings of his yearbook statements amounts to perjury and he probably did himself in on that alone. However, I do not believe he assaulted Christine Ford. |
Since it's a new thread, can you please add some context for this? I don't know who said this or where it was published. |
He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “threat” and also publicly and proudly announced, “I believe her” before any testimony. He is an innocent man who was vehemently defending his name, his reputation, his integrity, and his livelihood. This was not a “tense situation.” It was a lynching. It was disgusting. If you wish to see how he handles himself in tense situations, consider his behavior and demeanor during his 12 years as an appellate judge. There were NO COMPLAINTS. This is all I need to know. |
It shows pretty big inconsistencies in her story that make us question how accurate her memory is 36 years later. |
She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility. |
He is a never-prosecuted man. To call him innocent would mean you’re an eyewitness. |
You know what I learned in this, the truth doesn't matter when politics are involved.
|
So why didn't he show that when it counts? Either he chose to behave belligerently or couldn't help himself. |
To me, it is clear that something happened to this woman. And it makes sense that memories would fade about the details after so long. But I don’t get not being able to correctly identify the perpetrator no matter how long ago it happened. I don’t think she is lying. I do not believe she is part of a conspiracy. I would never convict him based on her testimony alone because it was so long ago and there are some inconsistencies. But there is enough there to say, nope, not going to put him on the SC. Next. |