Unresolved charges remain against Kavanugh

Post Reply New Topic

While the charges Christine Blasey Ford made against John Kavsnsugh have effectively been dismissed (though he was was not, in fact, " proven innocent ".despite Trump saying so) Joan Biskupic, a CNN writer, today has a piece about the 80-something ethics charges that are still being pursued against him. They gave not been dismissed.
None of them involve the alleged attempt to sexually reach Ford by force, but they involve things he said at that time - as well as things he said in 2004 and 2006. I can't link.

Federal Panel Of Judges Dismisses All 83 Ethics Complaints Against Brett Kavanaugh
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/67800408 ... -Kavanaugh

"the judicial council panel is obligated to dismiss them, because it has no authority over Kavanaugh"

The FBI report was inconclusive
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45693211

Like investigations into Trump there there is grounds that he committed a crime but due to insufficient legal evidence nothing further was pursued. In addition there is the inevitable political pressure to bury the investigation.

The metaphor "dead man walking" is an apt description. Most reasonable people believe a psychology professor (Blasey Ford) is unlikely to be prone to lie before a judicial hearing putting her own reputation at risk.

Another example of "How to get away with murder"

...The article I cited is more recent. I will reread it when I can - Or you, or anyone, have been given enough search terms by me to find it. - But, essentially, I believe the 83 charges were taken to another court, and are still under consideration.
BTW, you yourself quote an earlier comment that says, basically, that he's been elevated above being subject to those charges from that panel. The CNN article said the same thing.
Just as the Mueller Report did not clear Trump 100% no matter what he says in his speeches,the statement you wrote above says that panel can no longer consider them, they are obligated to because they have no authority now...not that they are baseless, but that it is, for that panel 's reach, moot.

I didn't think she seemed credible at all. I thought she seemed fake. Like it was a bad act. It also seems bizarre to me in the age of the internet and the fact that she was/is a professor that there was no video footage of her pre-hearing. I wanted to see any type of footage of her years prior to the hearings to see if she talked in that voice in years past. Nothing. I will be checking the internet probably for years to come from time to time to see if she still has that same voice years from now.

How is her testimony less credible than the women who alleged Bill Cosby assaulted them?

In any case I would rather believe qualified experts who found her testimony credible than opportunistic rats who have their noses shoved up Trump's backside.
https://www.latimes.com/science/science ... story.html

"Instead of a majority vote, a full two-thirds of senators have to vote “yes” in order to remove a sitting president or Supreme Court justice".
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/can-supr ... e-removed/

And therein lies the problem...

It works both ways. That is why Clinton and probably Obama were allowed to serve out their terms. It should not be easy to undo election results.