Garland was not permitted a hearing, a partisan maneuver that had nothing to do with his fitness for the job and everything to do with breaking precident in allowing a president to nominate the candidate of his choice for a seat that was vacated during his term with the expectation of serious consideration. To say that “Garland was treated much better than Kavanaugh,” because he wasn’t accused of attempted rape, even though he had no chance to testify to anything whatsoever, is dishonest.
Kavanaugh has recieved serious consideration, and he has failed to measure up on multiple accounts even setting aside the multiple independent sexual assault allegations which, corroborated or not, are more credible than Kavanaugh’s evasions, dissembling, and outright lying to the committee in his sworn testimony. That Kavanaugh has transparently lied about his juvenile and college behavior is on him, not the senators questioning him. Just because an alleged assaulter and his co-conspirator deny having committed a crime does not make it false by default.
Ok, he doesnt come off right. But still their is NO PROOF he did it. How can he possibly prove his innocence? Havent 2 other men come forward and said THEY were the ones who forced sex on her? She really cannot remember who or when it happened. We dont know how much she has been coached to finger Kavanaugh. People can be very good at putting ideas in peoples heads.
Now it would have been different if she or someone else back then had come forward and we had actual evidence. But we dont. We have no stained dress.
Actually, the Bar Association has expressed concerns about his behavior and there have been numerous accusations that he behaved outside decorum as an assistant to Ken Starr. Dems did not “dig this up.” They actually sat on it for several months (which is troubling, but might have been done to protect Ms. Ford, hoping that he would withdraw in ligjt of the othet issues),
I would hire you for a lot of different jobs. But I would hesitate to hire you as a lawyer if you violated drug laws while in law school (and it also depends on what “minor scrape” means).
No, the “lies” are things like he said he didn’t know the information was stolen but in his emails he discusses the information. In order to believe that is a lie you have to first assume he knew the information was stolen when there is no reason to believe that.
Or that it was a “lie” that he was never blackout drunk because people claim to have seen him blackout drunk even though it is impossible to know by looking at someone if they are blackout drunk.
Another “lie” was that he was never at a party like the one described, but there is a calendar listing for a party that has several of the same people listed.
These are not lies by any rational definition.
Back to the OP, unfortunately one aspect of our prison system is people go in, not for their original crime, but because they took a deal to plead guilty to a lesser sentence. The original charges are dropped.
So in truth, we dont really know what the original charges were. The crime could well have been more serious.
