Democrats call for Kavanaugh impeachment

[Unusual Tournament]

Democrats call for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s impeachment over new sex allegation

Donald Trump has rejected Democrats’ calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after a new report involving sexual misconduct allegations.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/democrats-call-for-supreme-court-justice-brett-kavanaughs-impeachment-over-new-rape-allegations/news-story/566448ccec115ef5877b1a8da572e175

 

[+and-then]

No... just... NO.

[RoofGardener]

Yeah, typical democrats.... looking for any excuse to IMPICH FURTY FIFE. 

Several leading democrats have already linked the desire to impeach Kavanagh with the desire to impeach President Trump. 

... “Confirmation is not exoneration, and these newest revelations are disturbing. Like the man who appointed him, Kavanaugh should be impeached,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said ...

Note that the journalists responsible for reviving this story (it's not new, and had already been dismissed by the FBI during Kavanaugh's confirmation process) work for the New York Times, possibly one of the most hostile newspapers to the Trump administration in America. 

It's also worth noting that the Democrats are calling for impeachment AHEAD of any actual fact-finding. They don't care if he is guilty or not....they just want to IMPEEEEEEEEEEECH. 

Edited September 16, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Gwynbleidd]

Oh my!  So this is the response to the Reps going to investigate Blasey-Ford.  Goodness me, it's too obvious after Katz' comments came out all over the right wing media last week with regards to the intention/authenticity of Blasey-Fords congressional testimony.  Because the Reps are looking to investigate Blasey-Ford now.

Sadly, I couldn't find any left leaning media links, and I did ask for others to help supply some if possible.  I had no luck - it was like silence on the left wing media about Blasey-Ford.

This is getting rather silly all round.

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Democrats call for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s impeachment over new sex allegation

Donald Trump has rejected Democrats’ calls to impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after a new report involving sexual misconduct allegations.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/democrats-call-for-supreme-court-justice-brett-kavanaughs-impeachment-over-new-rape-allegations/news-story/566448ccec115ef5877b1a8da572e175

 

all of the Supreme court judges should be impeached - how can you have have fair and independent court if its highest judges are all political appointees, appointed for their political leanings?

[Gwynbleidd]

35 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

They don't care if he is guilty or not....they just want to IMPEEEEEEEEEEECH. 

Don't forget you have to add this sound effect in, just for authenticity.  

 

 

[Gwynbleidd]

13 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

all of the Supreme court judges should be impeached - how can you have have fair and independent court if its highest judges are all political appointees, appointed for their political leanings?

I don't know how the US has been getting away with doing it like this for so long.  I would've thought the people would've kicked up a stink about this process long ago.  It's a weird way of choosing and only caters to when a new SCOTUS is required to be chosen and that usually only happens once in a blue moon when one of them dies or even more rarely, retires. 

[+Not A Rockstar]

It is part of the checks and balance process for them to be appointed the rare time one is needed, and then ratified by the elected Congress. Roll of the dice which party will do the appointing. Same with their inability to be dismissed, so they can be impartial when determining what is meant by the Constitution. 

Really, the way people are, this is about as good as we will get for a panel of judges. 

[RoofGardener]

43 minutes ago, Gwynbleidd said:

Don't forget you have to add this sound effect in, just for authenticity.  

 

 

EGADS. 

Excellent ! 

[TigerBright19]

How can anyone be punished (impeached) over an allegation of a crime?  What kind of backward approach is that to law and justice.

 

 

[RoofGardener]

5 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

How can anyone be punished (impeached) over an allegation of a crime?  What kind of backward approach is that to law and justice.

That's the Democrats for you. Leave no stone unturned in the campaign against Trump. Remember, law and the constitution take second place to GETTING TRUMP. IMPIECH FFTY FIVE. 

[TigerBright19]

19 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

That's the Democrats for you. Leave no stone unturned in the campaign against Trump. Remember, law and the constitution take second place to GETTING TRUMP. IMPIECH FFTY FIVE. 

Trouble is, they try to make an issue out of everything.  They remind me of the story - 'The boy who cried wolf'.

 

[RoofGardener]

Just now, Aaron2016 said:

Trouble is, they try to make an issue out of everything.  They remind me of the story - 'The boy who cried wolf'.

I agree entirely. Imagine in a year or two if they find something TRULY damaging against Trump. Will anyone actually believe them ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

The guy had a very credible accusation leveled against him and now it turns out that the flashing college incident is more credible than originally thought, and, worse than that, the FBI knew about it and didn't even bother to properly investigate. 

He also perjured himself under oath on numerous occasions. The highest level judge you can get in the US lied under oath during a hearing for the job. I mean what the ****. US courts and its political system are so outwardly corrupt that it's genuinely embarrassing.

[skliss]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The guy had a very credible accusation leveled against him and now it turns out that the flashing college incident is more credible than originally thought, and, worse than that, the FBI knew about it and didn't even bother to properly investigate. 

He also perjured himself under oath on numerous occasions. The highest level judge you can get in the US lied under oath during a hearing for the job. I mean what the ****. US courts and its political system are so outwardly corrupt that it's genuinely embarrassing.

Actually it isnt. Hes been accused by 2 people who heard someone saw something. The people who they point to as the actual witnesses of the alleged event both say they don't remember any such thing happening. How is that "credible"?

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The guy had a very credible accusation leveled against him and now it turns out that the flashing college incident is more credible than originally thought, and, worse than that, the FBI knew about it and didn't even bother to properly investigate. 

He also perjured himself under oath on numerous occasions. The highest level judge you can get in the US lied under oath during a hearing for the job. I mean what the ****. US courts and its political system are so outwardly corrupt that it's genuinely embarrassing.

Credible accusation ? What... the one from the woman who couldn't remember when it happened, or where, or who was involved ? THAT credible accusation ? 

Meanwhile, however, I'm intrigued what you said about perjury. Could you expand on this ? If he really HAD perjured himself during the hearings for the job then that IS obviously very serious, and he - in my opinion - would INDEED be up for impeachment ? 

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Credible accusation ? What... the one from the woman who couldn't remember when it happened, or where, or who was involved ? THAT credible accusation ? 

She remembers it happening and remembers running into him at a supermarket a couple of weeks later. How much do you understand about trauma and memory? 

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Meanwhile, however, I'm intrigued what you said about perjury. Could you expand on this ? If he really HAD perjured himself during the hearings for the job then that IS obviously very serious, and he - in my opinion - would INDEED be up for impeachment ? 

Google it or something. I'm not getting drawn back into arguing with ridiculously ignorant American posters about Brett Kavanaugh. I said what I said and people can think what they want. Considering they defend accused serial rapist and admitted serial assaulter Trump, there seems to be no bar too low for them.

 

[RoofGardener]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

She remembers it happening and remembers running into him at a supermarket a couple of weeks later. How much do you understand about trauma and memory? 

Google it or something. I'm not getting drawn back into arguing with ridiculously ignorant American posters about Brett Kavanaugh. I said what I said and people can think what they want. Considering they defend accused serial rapist and admitted serial assaulter Trump, there seems to be no bar too low for them.

So in other words you have ZERO evidence to corroborate your allegation that Bret Kavanaugh perjured himself ? You just believe it as an article of faith ? 

[RoofGardener]

OK.. I've googled it. Despite investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, there was NO evidence of perjury by Bret Kavanaugh. So in essence, you have libelled him @ExpandMyMind. 

Go and sit in the corner for the rest of the week, with your nose pressed up against the wall !  

[ExpandMyMind]

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So in other words you have ZERO evidence to corroborate your allegation that Bret Kavanaugh perjured himself ? You just believe it as an article of faith ? 

Let's ignore the numerous and obvious lies about his calendar, social life and boofing, etc, and look at the other examples.

Quote

3) Kavanaugh’s involvement in the nomination of a controversial anti-Roe v. Wade judge: In 2004, Kavanaugh said he did not “personally” handle the nomination of Judge William Pryor, who currently sits on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) and is somewhat of a liberal bogeyman, famously calling Roe v. Wade and the legal right to abortion ”the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”

Kavanaugh, who worked in Bush’s White House counsel office in the early 2000s, distanced himself from Pryor’s nomination in 2004, saying during his own confirmation hearing, “No, I was not involved in handling his nomination.” But as the Washington Post’s Seung Min Kim first reported, between 2002 and 2003, Kavanaugh is included in several emails referencing the Pryor nomination. In one exchange between Kavanaugh and White House aide Kyle Sampson, Kavanaugh is asked: “How did the Pryor interview go?” He responded, “Call me.” In another email chain, Kavanaugh is included in a conversation about a conference call to “coordinate plans and efforts” around Pryor.

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.

In 2004, Kavanaugh claimed that he had never seen “any documents that appeared ... to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” But as Vox’s Dylan Matthews explained, an email between the Republican staffer and Kavanaugh showed him receiving some of the documents.

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.

 https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress

I mean it won't matter, because nothing matters anymore to McConnell's defunct Senate, but he's lied so many times under oath that it's South Park levels of ridiculousness to see him as a Supreme Court judge. 

18 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So in other words you have ZERO evidence to corroborate your allegation that Bret Kavanaugh perjured himself ? You just believe it as an article of faith ? 

Sure, that's what I meant when I said I don't care to get drawn into another battle with right wing lunatics. It's totally within my character to make up claims, as is evident by the thousands of posts I've made where I just make stuff up. 

 

 

[skliss]

Times apologizes for tweet, revises Kavanaugh article

NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday said Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is under assault, following a New York Times story about a sexual misconduct allegation that was revised to reflect that the alleged victim couldn't recall the incident.

The newspaper has also apologized for an offensive tweet that was sent out to promote the weekend article.

The Times reported on an allegation that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a Yale University party as a freshman. That new allegation was included in an article, excerpting an upcoming book about Kavanaugh classmate Deborah Ramirez, who had claimed the future justice pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her at another time at a different Yale party.

In writing about the new allegation, the story did not initially include the detail that the woman supposedly involved in the incident declined to be interviewed, and that her friends say she doesn't recall it. The article was revised to include that information, with an editor's note explaining the revision.

...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/times-apologizes-tweet-revises-kavanaugh-140536566.html

[aztek]

NYT , manufacturing outrage  since 2016

[Big Jim]

There were weeks of hearings where this could have been produced as testimony.  Now it is merely rumor.

[RoofGardener]

So let me get this straight.... 

Somebody has alleged that they saw Kavanaugh assault a girl at a party. However, the girl in question has stated that she has no recollection of any such incident ? 

That same "somebody" then mentioned several witnesses to the event. However, non of those witnesses have any recollection of any such incident ? 

And all this happened umpty years ago, and was already investigated during Kavanaugh's original selection interviews . 

In other words, not only is this a slanderous nothingburger, but it is a STALE nothingburger. It contains NO new revelations, just some wierd re-hash of stuff we already knew, dressed up as a shocking new revelation. And over THIS, the democrats are demanding impeachment hearings ? 

Ye gods, the Democrats must be DESPERATE ! This is so pathetic, it's an embarrassment to International viewers. We are looking at America and laughing. And they say that President Trump is an international embarrassment ? Folks, he ain't NOTHING compared to this sort of asinine behavior. 

[aztek]

Quote

"if at first you don't succeeded, dust your self off, and try again." ,