'Mean drunk' Kavanaugh was 'handsy' with girls, Julie Swetnick says in first televised interview
Speaking to NBC News' Kate Snow in an interview that aired Monday night on MSNBC, Julie Swetnick called Brett Kavanaugh a "Liar" for dismissing her allegations against him but could not accuse him of assaulting her. Source 8w.
And so it looks like we will see Brett achieve his life long dream no matter the question mark over his head. It is true that evidence makes a man guilty but no evidence is necessary when it comes to public perception and the public is often correct.
International Level: Senior Politician / Political Participation: 163 16.3%
Public perception is not all it is cracked up to be as the news media will skew the evidence into what they want and then the perception of the public is often off thus a person is guilty of something they may not have done. While Kavanaugh may have done a lot of bad stuff I am not sure we are seeing all of the facts. Even we are it is too late to really do anything to him due to statue of limitations. So it is hard to believe that it is big news now but no news 30+ years ago.
I am not saying he did not do those things. I am saying that people need to be more forthcoming about stuff instead of waiting until 30+ years have passed and suddenly that person is getting to be a important person.
If there was evidence the statute of limitations does not apply in this case, but there isn't evidence except one person's account so it does not stand up.
International Level: New Activist / Political Participation: 18 1.8%
Statute of limitations does indeed keep him from being prosecuted, but this guy is supposed to be several things, legally squeaky clean, nonpartisan, and composed.
Even if there actually wasn't evidence against the first of those three, he failed badly on the other two during the hearing. As far as I'm concerned, even if this was a democrat plot, and everything is a lie, Kavanaugh's rage and tear filled exposition in which he rambled about all of this being unfair and a democrat conspiracy against him still disqualifies him for the seat.
And then there were the multiple lies he made under oath. The lies were minor enough that they're probably again not worth prosecuting, but they certainly speak to his integrity. If he can't be trusted simply to tell the truth about the meaning of a word, why should we believe the rest of his testimony?
Edited: daishain on 5th Oct, 2018 - 11:29am
Yes he liked under oath just like most of the others in Washington DC seem to do a lot as it is why should he be any different. I think he was a poor choice in the beginning and all this has done is proved that point. Now we will have another person in power who should not be there like the 535 people who are on welfare at the tax payers dime.
I am absolutely not going to disagree about the level of corruption among politicians. However, the Supreme Court was the final holdout. It has for a long time strived to be above partisan politics. It has not always been successful in that regard, but in this particular appointment, I see a deliberate attempt to abandon that ideal entirely. Especially given that this is a lifetime appointment, and the long-reaching scope of decisions made by the Supreme Court, yes I am quite concerned.
That is the idea with the Supreme Court to be non biased politically. That isn't the way it has been for some time. There are justices on both sides that have admitted to waiting to retire until the right party has the presidency. Our entire political system is a corrupt mess. It's really disheartening. That's why I try to ignore politics usually.