UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

I would have voted to confirm him, were I in the Senate...until Friday.

You guys have lost it. You have no adults. You ahve smeared a good man with a clean history with unverified claims.

You, in particular, appear to be operating in opposition to one of the few moral standards that a criminal defense lawyer is required to possess - namely that a man is proven innocent until proven guilty. This is a principle that transcends formal court hearings in civiclized society, and it certainly should be granted in this case of obvious character assassination without any credible claims.

Pretty pathetic, but not unexpected.

The issue is whether any sitting US senator, per their oath of office, and per their constitutional duty to advise and consent, should vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

They need not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the sexual misconduct allegations and/or whether he lied under oath.

They have to assess the totality of the information before them and make a judgment.

[BTW, I presume you are aware of professionals -- doctors, lawyers, nurses,etc, who although never criminally prosecuted, lost their license to practice or were sanctioned for misconduct.]

She already had a talk with my sons about the fact that they can be accused by a girl, and they will be presumed guilty until proven innocent, so they need to make sure they trust who they hang out with, and be aware of what is going on at parties, don't get in a situation which can lead to an accusation....

Every woman should be concerned about the men in their lives being accused. All it takes is to make someone angry...in the case of Kavanaugh, it is politics, but it doesn't have to be politics. And, punishment doesn't have to be in court. Mainstream people with societal influence now argue that guilt can be presumed: "Accusers must be believed."

That's the kind of world you guys want...presumptions of guilt anywhere outside a courtroom. That has already caused problems at universities. I don't know why you would want to live in a world like that, but I sure don't. Thus, I hope you lose this political fight.

(no message)

You voted for and fully support the King of Falsity, who has the power of the Oval Office.

Aim higher.

Be not afraid. Of the truth.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

And vote Republican.

(no message)

(no message)

You do not learn. Ever. This notion - "a man is proven innocent until proven guilty" - is irrelevant here. This is a job interview - for a lifetime appointment at one of the most important jobs in the world - with so much smoke swirling around this candidate that no one would ever hire him for anything else.

There are plenty of other pro-life zealots you could get, ones who would not threaten the very legitimacy of the court with their belligerent partisanship.

If he actually gave a shit about his country, Kavanaugh would step aside. Trump could nominate the chick from ND and you guys could have her confirmed by mid-October.

Presumption of Innocence is a tenant of civilized society- it is not just applied at a trial. it has been the basis of western civilization for thousands of years.

I have news for you on any other cadidate: the Left will feel so empowered if they are able to sink such a strong candidate on false accusations that they will merely feel emboldened. The next cadidate - no matter who it is - will face even worse by your radical preserve the right to kill babies at any cost zealots.

You are painfully unaware of your own zealotry.

If a coach or teacher in your child's life had four accusations like this made about him, you would not allow your kid to be around him, regardless if you'd been presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And, as point of fact, if a teacher is arrested and charged with such crimes, they are uniformly removed. If you were a business owner and this guy was presented to you as a candidate and you learned of multiple accusations against him of this nature, you would turn to other candidates because it's not worth the risk.

You know what kills me? Folks of your stripe who will gleefully support the erosion of workers' rights and protections against wrongful termination and argue that employers and government should be able to fire people without establishing anything near "beyond a reasonable doubt," magically believe in an instance like this that we must meet that bar. Do you know how phony that sounds?

This guy lied a minimum of four times in his testimony last week. You don't believe he never drank to the point that he had no memory of what transpired. That's what a "blackout" means. He lied about "Renate Alumnius." He lied about the drinking age at the time. He lied about learning about the Ramirez accusation only after The New Yorker article came out.

And I'll tell you something else: this guy is an alcoholic and I feel bad for his wife and kids. He's chosen to put them through all this and his wife knows he's a drunk. If you go back and listen to his testimony last week, even going beyond the meltdown and all his emoting, pay attention to the content. Even when the senators wanted to get past the drinking, Kavanaugh kept bringing it back to his love of drinking. That is how alcoholics talk. This guy is the exact opposite of what we need on the Supreme Court, in terms of temperament, character and intellect. His repeatedly made stupid analogies to defend himself in the hearing. At a time when his relationships and views on women were in question, he chose to get belligerent with the most docile female senator on the committee. That is stupid behavior and neither you nor I can imagine Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, et al., being so stupid. Forget about the country, he should withdraw for the sake of his family. He's choosing to humiliate his wife by dragging this out and thus bringing more and more people forward who will testify that he was lying about his drinking and lying about his behavior in general.

and pretend to know more about Kavanaugh than the rest of us

Really? Or is this hitting too close to home for you? Are you describing yourself?

It is so amazing that you know so much about him and his relationship with his wife

Be nice if we knew that much about Ford?

Can you help with that as well?

(no message)

and calling each case according to their merits.

tribalists is tantamount to Westcoast calling 15yr old's, easy.

As for calling things on their own merit, you haven't been close to that in your history of posting here. Because you suddenly fell on the side of the liberal coin (you found morality and sound judgement on an issue for once) or as it's known, the side of fact and fair play, doesn't mean you're not the tribalist you contend me to be.

Your high-horse has thrown a shoe.

A good friend of mine was falsely accused at my kids grade school (we weren’t real close friends at the time, but became so afterwards because I stuck up for him when he was hit with ridiculous charges which were eventually disproven). So, I guess you are back to making false presumptions about “guys of my stripe”again.

Regarding Kav lying - let’s address those allegations:
1) the claim that he,lied about the drinking age- it is my understanding that Maryland and DC has different drinking ages at the time.
2) Blackout was defined during questioning as drinking so heavily that one loses memory of the event. Kav denied that, but did admit to drinking enough to have fallen asleep. Not a terribly major distinction, but given the definitions provided by the questioners when asked for clarification, not a lie either.
3) Never understood about Renate Alumnius except that it referred to a girl - you’ll have to explain your issue here to me sinceI don’t bother with CNN.
4) you’re an amateur armchair psychiatrist - he drank more than he should have as a juvenile - he didn’t let it rule his life when he matured as proven by his accomplishments. He enjoys a beer and isn’t going to apologize for it to the PC police. It’s absurd to accuse him of alcoholism for parties 36 years ago.
5) They falsely accused him and ruined his life. He had every right to go after the lying bastards who did so in such cowardly fashion. As the Left keeps pointing out, “this isn’t a courtroom”. If you want his courtroom demeanor - look at his history on the bench - there is a ton of it to assess where he is actually being a judge - and he has no problems.
6) stupid and sexist description aside, that “docile female” swung an axe at his entire family and career.

The Left isn’t used to being stood up to and called out. Kavanaugh gets high marks for doing that. If the Left is worried about consequences for their dirty tricks when he gets on the bench, then that’s a good thing.

(no message)

They merely choose to ignore it

Or they're just so used to being assholes it comes naturally

(no message)

The Dems are the party of bullies. They hope to bully and shame people into acquiescing to their power...whether that be picketing their front yard, harrassing their family in a restaurant, or accusing them in public of heinous but unprovable crimes. (Hell, they are even accusing Graham of being gay. I guess using "gay" as an insult is something only Dems can do legitimately, because they are the ones who are permitted to behave that way.) Probably why they are so upset about Trump's name calling...he's adopted some of their rules, and they can't tolerate their rules being applied to everyone.

Mitchy Mitch and the Funky Trump are the bully party.

...using authority to take down private citizens and political groups, paying for opposition research from foreign entities and then using it to launch an official investigation of the opposition. actively soliciting 36 year old stories by false memory patients to take down SCOTUS nominees

You guys are working yourselves into a frenzy, and you rationalize it as ok. Yes, I say you because you have accepted their behavior.

Link: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/10/02/packages-that-may-contain-ricin-found-pentagon-grounds/DwtQPZMiTbH1rOIwX9fApN/story.html

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

...he's probably gay. But, I'm not a Dem, so I won't say that.

(no message)

(no message)

Funny how you voted for trump and didn't even get paid for your support while others did.

(no message)

That’s what this is all about.

(no message)

(no message)

It is you and yours assassinating an incredible candidates character with unverified false accusations, and then justifying it to protect your sacrament to kill the unborn. It is you and yours that are desperate, violent, and irrational. And obviously, it is you and yours who are using the ends to justify your evil means against Kavanaugh.

I am not surprised that you would accuse your opponent of that which you do - it is a liberal trait. But I am amazed at how you are able to convince yourself of the truth of your own lies. I would respect you more if you just admitted your game and or if you had strong enough insight to realize it.

I've only said this a million times on here. I don't care if it's illegal; I don't care if it's mandatory.

I live with an arch pro-choice person, and we never talk about it, because I believe Roe v Wade was terrible for this country. Not because of the unborn - don't care - but because of the division and rise of the "moral majority" and how it inspired good people all over the country to hold their nose and vote for Trump. It overrides all morality. It is the single issue for zealots everywhere.

No Roe, no Dubya, so no Iraq War.

No Roe, no Trump.

He or she is "arch pro-choice." But, you would be happy with it being mandatory.

Your roommate uses a euphemism ("choice") to distance himself or herself from his or her support for the right to have an abortion. Most people who support a right to do something just say they are pro-that-right, not that they are pro-choice regarding that right. Pro-gun and pro-abortion mean pro-choice with regard to people owning guns, and pro-choice with regard to people having abortions. But only those who are pro-abortion feel like they need to use a euphemism for their right, because they know something is actually morally wrong with their position. But, you claim to be comfortable enough to make it mandatory.

(no message)

being a supporter of all life would not be tolerated and you know it.

You graduated from ND? Really?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Turns out everything - everything - Trump told the country about Stormy was false.

But you believed him.


Link: Another hit job by lefty rag! Oh,

This appears to be the best you got.

(no message)

mocks Mueller daily via tweet.

So, who did Trump conspire with exactly? And, why hasn't Mueller charged him or her yet?

With regard to Page, as usual, you prematurely ejaculate.

At this point we know the campaign colluded with the Russian Govt representatives at the Tower meeting. We will know more after Manafort spills and Mueller issues his report.

Patience, cupcake.

He got no patience.













I'll quietly slink away now...

No class.

Not a good one, but it is all I remember from Fat Albert, from the comedian formerly known as Bill Cosby.

It does not work that way.

(no message)

When a conspirator pleads guilty and agrees to cooperate, he has to plead guilty to the conspiracy. Here, Manafort and PapaD have done no such thing, and Page hasn't even been charged (and for Crissakes, never will be by now - for him, the investigation is about 3 years old - the FBI doesn't wait that long to charge people).

Too bad Frank is so partisan that he omits this salient fact and prevents an intelligent discussion from taking place on this Board.

One doesn’t have to plead to conspiracy to it to testify to what they observed or even participated in.. They can also be a witness with other criminal culpability whose observations support a conspiracy claim.

You are a moron.

We all know that expertise is not only worthless, it is actually counterproductive.

I think we should all believe Cole's interpretation of legal issues rather than that of experts. Maybe we all could learn a bit more from him.

with the same crime. This helps in proving the conspiracy. Otherwise, the defense lawyer will cross examine the cooperator on the fact that he never pled guilty to the crime that he alleges the defendant committed.

Every moron with a license to practice law knows this.

The cooperating witness doesn’t have to plead to being a conspirator.

Of course they will cross examine him and he will say that he plead guilty to other matters.

It doesn’t impact his factual testimony on what he saw and did.

Chris, if we are citing to experts now, then my point has been repeatedly made by Byron York and Andrew McCarthy. Look them up. I'm guessing that they are more qualified than Frank.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)