Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72398 times)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #250 on: September 24, 2018, 08:46:57 AM »

Ignoring the fact that all the FBI could do here is do a background check, if the person making the allegation can't name the time or place that it happened, and can't name a witness to corroborate her story, and there is no physical evidence because it happened over thirty years ago (and of course, knowing where it happened would be a big part of collecting physical evidence), what exactly is the FBI supposed to investigate?

She has given her story, Kavanaugh has given his.  The witnesses she named have given theirs.  The Senate is going to decide whether they think she is credible without any corroborating evidence regardless of what the FBI does.  What else is there to do other than swear them in and have them testify?

I don't think you understand what the FBI can and routinely does do when conducting investigations for high-level appointments.  I detailed it a bit in my previous post, but the investigation would not be limited to the event over three decades ago. The investigators would look for motivating factors for making this allegation (is it political? was she paid or coerced?).  they would talk to her close family members (when did they first learn about it? Has the story changed?) They would certainly interview Judge (who would now face obstruction charges if he lied) as well as other close friends of Kavanaugh during that period (did Kavanaugh drink heavily? Was he ever aggressive with other girls? Did he share Judge's well documented opinions on 'hookup culture'?). They could talk to her therapist (with permission) and ask when and how these memories came about.
All of these things involve very recent events and could tell us a great deal. It's mind-boggling to hear people say that 1) nothing can be learned or 2) this isn't the purvue of the FBI.  The only rational explanation is that the GOP does not want to cast further doubt on their nomination.

electriceagle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #251 on: September 24, 2018, 08:53:56 AM »
Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman. 

At this point, the Republicans have to decide whether they are willing to take the heat to keep Kavanaugh and pass him on a party-line vote (which is what they intended to do in the first place) or drop him completely. If they open an investigation and new accusers come forward in drips and drabs, the investigation will stretch past the election and Trump could lose the ability to make this appointment.

Jeff Flake could vote "no" since he is retiring (no longer needs the goodwill of the Republican party) and dislikes Trump and his ways. If Flake bails, Kavanaugh doesn't get out of the judiciary committee.

My guess is that they will decide whether to accept Kavanaugh before having the hearing, as there's no point in producing the spectacle of male senators interviewing a crying woman and then dropping the nomination anyway.

I don't see any point in pretending that anyone in politics is interested in whether the allegations are true. They all want what they want and will use any tool to get it -- if the Republicans request that the FBI conduct an investigation, it is because they intend to drop Kavanaugh and are buying time for Trump to choose a nominee and rapidly vet him in secret before doing the world's fastest confirmation process.

If you see an ad in the paper that says "Do you believe that President cannot be indicted & abortion should be illegal? I've got a job for you! Good pay, lifetime appointment, judicial experience optional." you'll know which way this is going to go.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #252 on: September 24, 2018, 09:19:05 AM »
Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman. 

At this point, the Republicans have to decide whether they are willing to take the heat to keep Kavanaugh and pass him on a party-line vote (which is what they intended to do in the first place) or drop him completely. If they open an investigation and new accusers come forward in drips and drabs, the investigation will stretch past the election and Trump could lose the ability to make this appointment.

Jeff Flake could vote "no" since he is retiring (no longer needs the goodwill of the Republican party) and dislikes Trump and his ways. If Flake bails, Kavanaugh doesn't get out of the judiciary committee.

My guess is that they will decide whether to accept Kavanaugh before having the hearing, as there's no point in producing the spectacle of male senators interviewing a crying woman and then dropping the nomination anyway.

I don't see any point in pretending that anyone in politics is interested in whether the allegations are true. They all want what they want and will use any tool to get it -- if the Republicans request that the FBI conduct an investigation, it is because they intend to drop Kavanaugh and are buying time for Trump to choose a nominee and rapidly vet him in secret before doing the world's fastest confirmation process.

If you see an ad in the paper that says "Do you believe that President cannot be indicted & abortion should be illegal? I've got a job for you! Good pay, lifetime appointment, judicial experience optional." you'll know which way this is going to go.

Interesting analysis - I'd just stress these two points
1) they've already got a pre-vetted list of 21 potential nominees, which has been public for 2+ years now.

2) this notion about "running out of time" and "eleventh hour" is even remotely true. Its September 24th - there are 101 days until the next congress is sworn in (which may or may not still have a GOP majority).  There are 43 days between now and the midterms.
Roberts, Ginsberg, Stevens and O'Conner all went from nomination to confirmation in less than 43 days.  Every single justice in the last century has been confirmed in under 100 days, including Thomas (at 99).

I have no dilusions that the Dems can somehow prevent the GOP from nominating whomever they want, and I'm certain it will be a person who is very right-of-center, particularly as it pertains to guns, women's rights, abortion and corporations. I'd just like for it to not be someone who's widely seen as having been a sexual deviant in his formative years.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #253 on: September 24, 2018, 09:30:45 AM »
Just read through this weekend's posts on this topics, and wanted to point out a few things:

-I don't think you can tie Democrats to the timing of Ford's accusations becoming public, the timeline I've read in several places suggests Feinstein kept it private and internal, and it was actually reports who spent several weeks digging and digging before finally linking Ford to the originally very nebulous public whispers, forcing her to come public with her name and the actual details

-This line about "no one" corroborating Ford's details is a completely false Republican talking point. Yes, the woman Ford specifically cited could not confirm that she was at the party, and Judge backs up Kavanaugh but refused to provide Senate testimony. But many people of that age and in that scene have confirmed some of the aspects, like the hard drinking and partying lifestyle (yearbooks, Judge's memoirs, other people not connected to the specific allegation). So there is a lot of smoke surrounding this allegation. This includes an old girlfriend of Judge's. Again, much of this points to things Judge may have committed, and while that doesn't prove Kavanaugh was involved, they were obviously very close friends.

-The second accuser, Ramirez, has provided more specific allegations, including time, place, and additional witnesses. Many of those witnesses she gave are directly refuting her, but again, there is circumstantial evidence that she told others at the time who were not there but have confirmed portions of her story. One could entertain the notion that the denials may be false or made for other reasons, and that's why these need to be actually investigated.

-No one is really talking about the third unnamed accuser now being repped by Avenatti. He's made some pretty bold accusations on Twitter (well, they are very slippery accusations, since they are more posed as questions he thinks the Senate should start asking...you could see how he could back down or deny and not be accused of slander the way he's asked them).

The point is the Republican talking point that there is only one lone accuser who no one will corroborate and who is only speaking to events 35 years ago has been completely blown up this weekend. There is a ton of smoke, and while if you want to say there's no fire yet I can't completely fault you, I still think the country deserves to know more.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #254 on: September 24, 2018, 09:37:42 AM »
There is literally nothing else that could be done to clear Kavanaugh's name.

False accusations have a way of rapidly crumbling.

There have been a few cases in recent years of false accusations being exposed by an investigation, notably the Duke Lacrosse case.  The details were similar (drunk students at a party) but the accuser was less credible and the prosecution and presumption of guilt was much more rushed.   In the end, just a cursory attempt by journalists (not the FBI) was enough to find holes and contradictions in the story, the accusations were withdrawn and the charges dropped, and the prosecutor was disbarred.  Multiple university administrators were forced to resign.  Despite the initial outcry, justice was apparently served and the accused were exonerated, and the accusers had their lives destroyed instead of the accused.

Given that history, it makes perfect sense to me that Feinstein sat on this accusation for so long.  If she rushed to back an accusation of unknown merit, she would probably be forced to resign.  Ford's (very famous) lawyer would likely have her career ruined. 

Any time that a story like this breaks national news, I sort of assume there is far more information in the hands of the relevant parties than is reported by the press.  I've seen too many stories evolve over time to think that we have the full picture at the outset, so I suspect that Feinstein has already done her own private investigation and corroborated the story somehow.  A PI can rapidly determine that the two people were in fact students at the same school and traveled in similar social circles, that Kavanaugh was in fact at the party and was in fact stumbling drunk, that Ford has been credibly discussing this attack for decades now, and that other credible accusations support Kavanaugh's history of similar behavior.  All of that deserves a public airing before he is confirmed.

At this point, Kavanaugh's best (and I think only) defense is going to be "I was too drunk to remember any of this, but it sure doesn't seem like me."  He can't credibly deny the allegations because he was apparently too drunk to stand.  Is that the man we want as our final arbiter of moral authority on the Supreme Court?

I have certainly overimbibed as a young man, and said and done some horrible things as a result, but I have never assaulted anyone while drunk.  It wouldn't even occur to me that anyone might attempt to make such an accusation based on any circumstance that might even remotely have been misconstrued as nonconsensual touching.  This behavior is not, and never was, normal or acceptable.  The common republican talking point about "what young man hasn't done this" seems horribly regressive to me.  What sort of person HAS done this? 

In the republican defense of Kavanaugh I'm hearing eerie echoes of their defense of admitted child molestor Judge Roy Moore for the Senate, or their defense of admitted serial philanderer and groper Donald Trump for the presidency.  Republicans, who used to claim the mantle of the "family values" party, have fully embraced the most vile and disgusting sort of male privilege imaginable, the consequence-free sexual assault of women, in their candidates for high office.  Even for voters who like the GOP positions on economic policy, gun control, the military, or social issues like religion, the open embrace of sexual assault seems like it's probably disqualifying.  I understand that you don't always get everything you want in a candidate, but what kind of person votes for a rapist just because they're also a supply-sider?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #255 on: September 24, 2018, 10:50:32 AM »

She talked to her therapist about it roughly thirty years after it happened without naming Kavanaugh. 

Women don't report things for lots of reasons, but if you're worried about women reporting things in the future, Blassey did them a disservice.  It's hard to figure out what happened in these situations in the best of circumstances.  Once a few decades have passed, it's pretty much impossible.  Blassey threw out an allegation without being able to name a time or place and the only witnesses identified deny it.  Kavanaugh has denied it.  Every person who has known Kavanaugh for the past three decades says they've never seen him do anything like that.  There is literally nothing else that could be done to clear Kavanaugh's name.  People crediting her allegation now are basically saying, yes, she can't remember the time or place and the only people she says witnessed it deny it, but we believe her.  There's literally no way for Kavanaugh to discredit her claim any more than it already is than by proving he actually was never in Maryland for the two years that her allegation could have taken place in. 

To ask people to believe her over the witnesses she identified when she can't even identify a time or place is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation.  Of course people are going to push back on that.  And that probably will unfortunately discourage some victims that can credibly claim sexual assault, including being able to name a time or place of the assault or a time a place when they became incapacitated such that they couldn't remember the details of the assault.

Because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible, and denials mean little when not given under oath or as part of an investigation, particularly when that person would also be part of a crime.   These are not vague accusations,

An allegation that can't name a time and place other than a county and year is not vague?  If that's not vague, I guess that means you find the allegations completely false since her friend Keyser (alleged by Ford to have been present at the party) said she doesn't recall ever being at a party where kavanaugh was present?   

and as I've said before it's hyperbole to suggest that failure to reach SCOTUS is equivalent to "ruining" Kavanaugh's life.
  Who suggested it is ruining his life?  You could argue whether letting completely uncorroborated allegations derail his career is ruining it.  But the bigger issue is that we can't provide anybody who has ever been in the same geographic area and plausibly within the same extended social circles to have a veto power of their appointment.   

Indeed its important to note that Blasey Ford has lost a great deal by coming forward.
  She has lost her anonymity.  She'll be viewed as a hero by some people and as a political opportunist by others.  I'm not sure how that tradeoff works teaching in California. 

This is why an investigation is so important. Beyond determining whether details from the alleged assault are consistent and whether any can be verified, it can also ascertain the actions of everyone involved over the last several weeks. Simple questions that can be addressed include "Was Blassey-Ford compensated or politically motivated?" "Has the alleged witness and co-assualtant Judge coordinated his responses with Kavanaugh and his team?" " What steps did Feinstein take she first received a letter about this assault, and was there coordination between Feinstein and Blasey Ford", "do .  These questions and others can very easily be ascertained by an investigation and by hearings under oath. False accusations have a way of rapidly crumbling. To NOT take these steps is akin to throwing up ones hands and saying "well we can't possibly ever know so let's not even try to find out". This is not about proving behind a reasonable doubt as one would for a criminal trial. It's about appointing someone to SCOTUS, and deciding whether multiple allegations are credible.

Also, please note the correct spelling of the alleged victim's name.
  Nobody is suggesting not asking these questions.  There just not going along with the disingenuous requests to delay things.  If Ford will not agree to make her allegations under oath and at least have a closed meeting with the senators, there's not much reason to proceed.  As you said, this is not about reasonable doubt, it's about appointing someone to SCOTUS.  That's a political process (as Feinstein has made so clear with her actions), and if Ford doesn't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court, the minimum she has to do is agree to answer questions as part of the political process. 


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #256 on: September 24, 2018, 10:54:19 AM »
Here's a bizarre example of cosmic karma...

Brett Kavanaugh currently sits on the DC circuit court of appeals. 

The chief justice of the DC circuit is none-other than Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Obama but denied even a hearing for over 7 months by McConnell and the GOP-held Senate.

If Kavanaugh is shown or suspected to have falsely denied allegations made by Blasey Ford, he could be investigated by the DC Circuit for publicly lying while serving as a member of the DC Circuit Court, and the results of said investigation would be given to Judge Garland.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #257 on: September 24, 2018, 11:12:06 AM »

She talked to her therapist about it roughly thirty years after it happened without naming Kavanaugh. 

Women don't report things for lots of reasons, but if you're worried about women reporting things in the future, Blassey did them a disservice.  It's hard to figure out what happened in these situations in the best of circumstances.  Once a few decades have passed, it's pretty much impossible.  Blassey threw out an allegation without being able to name a time or place and the only witnesses identified deny it.  Kavanaugh has denied it.  Every person who has known Kavanaugh for the past three decades says they've never seen him do anything like that.  There is literally nothing else that could be done to clear Kavanaugh's name.  People crediting her allegation now are basically saying, yes, she can't remember the time or place and the only people she says witnessed it deny it, but we believe her.  There's literally no way for Kavanaugh to discredit her claim any more than it already is than by proving he actually was never in Maryland for the two years that her allegation could have taken place in. 

To ask people to believe her over the witnesses she identified when she can't even identify a time or place is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation.  Of course people are going to push back on that.  And that probably will unfortunately discourage some victims that can credibly claim sexual assault, including being able to name a time or place of the assault or a time a place when they became incapacitated such that they couldn't remember the details of the assault.

Because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible, and denials mean little when not given under oath or as part of an investigation, particularly when that person would also be part of a crime.   These are not vague accusations,

An allegation that can't name a time and place other than a county and year is not vague?  If that's not vague, I guess that means you find the allegations completely false since her friend Keyser (alleged by Ford to have been present at the party) said she doesn't recall ever being at a party where kavanaugh was present?   

and as I've said before it's hyperbole to suggest that failure to reach SCOTUS is equivalent to "ruining" Kavanaugh's life.
  Who suggested it is ruining his life?  You could argue whether letting completely uncorroborated allegations derail his career is ruining it.  But the bigger issue is that we can't provide anybody who has ever been in the same geographic area and plausibly within the same extended social circles to have a veto power of their appointment.   

Indeed its important to note that Blasey Ford has lost a great deal by coming forward.
  She has lost her anonymity.  She'll be viewed as a hero by some people and as a political opportunist by others.  I'm not sure how that tradeoff works teaching in California. 

This is why an investigation is so important. Beyond determining whether details from the alleged assault are consistent and whether any can be verified, it can also ascertain the actions of everyone involved over the last several weeks. Simple questions that can be addressed include "Was Blassey-Ford compensated or politically motivated?" "Has the alleged witness and co-assualtant Judge coordinated his responses with Kavanaugh and his team?" " What steps did Feinstein take she first received a letter about this assault, and was there coordination between Feinstein and Blasey Ford", "do .  These questions and others can very easily be ascertained by an investigation and by hearings under oath. False accusations have a way of rapidly crumbling. To NOT take these steps is akin to throwing up ones hands and saying "well we can't possibly ever know so let's not even try to find out". This is not about proving behind a reasonable doubt as one would for a criminal trial. It's about appointing someone to SCOTUS, and deciding whether multiple allegations are credible.

Also, please note the correct spelling of the alleged victim's name.
  Nobody is suggesting not asking these questions.  There just not going along with the disingenuous requests to delay things.  If Ford will not agree to make her allegations under oath and at least have a closed meeting with the senators, there's not much reason to proceed.  As you said, this is not about reasonable doubt, it's about appointing someone to SCOTUS.  That's a political process (as Feinstein has made so clear with her actions), and if Ford doesn't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court, the minimum she has to do is agree to answer questions as part of the political process.

Honestly what is the issue with having the FBI investigate these allegations? Having the FBI investigate is a two-edged sword. It might provide evidence she has made a false accusation. I think the only way CBFord will have a fair hearing is if the FBI do an independent, inpartial investigation. She won't get that by simply testifying in front of the congressional committee. That is plainly obvious.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #258 on: September 24, 2018, 11:31:34 AM »
Honestly what is the issue with having the FBI investigate these allegations?

Was that a rhetorical questions?  Because the answer seems obvious to me, like it shouldn't need explanation.

But just in case I'm assuming too much, I thin the answer to your question "what is the harm in investigating" is that to Trump's GOP, an investigation would lend credence to the allegation regardless of what it finds, because it suggests that someone somewhere thinks the allegations credible enough to not laugh out loud at. 

For now, Kavanaugh's defense seems to be "this never happened, and you've hurt my feelings by even suggesting it."  They don't want to investigate, because they might find something they don't want to know, and they have no room to back down on this.  They need to approve Kavanaugh no matter how many allegations against him there are, provable or otherwise. 

Congressional republicans see his appointment as the means to future electoral victories by appeasing the religious zealots on the far right (by outlawing abortion).  Trump sees his appointment as his get-out-of-jail-free card, because Kavanaugh is on record as ruling "it's not illegal when the President does it".  These two things together, and their unusual presence in the same nominee, makes Kav a uniquely powerful republican appointee right now and they don't seem to think they can find anyone else who checks those two boxes, so his criminal past is going to have to be overlooked.  Which should be easy, since they've already overlooked a similar history in their Presidential candidate and thus have plenty of practice.

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #259 on: September 24, 2018, 11:35:45 AM »
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #260 on: September 24, 2018, 11:39:31 AM »
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #261 on: September 24, 2018, 11:43:42 AM »
  Who suggested it is ruining his life?  You could argue whether letting completely uncorroborated allegations derail his career is ruining it.  But the bigger issue is that we can't provide anybody who has ever been in the same geographic area and plausibly within the same extended social circles to have a veto power of their appointment.   

I think there's a bit you are missing about current events.  Graham is just one of many people suggesting Kavanaugh's life is somehow going to be 'ruined' if he doesn't get appointed to SCOTUS.  Here he was on Fox News Sunday: What am I supposed to do, go and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation? … I’m just being honest: Unless there’s something more, no, I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this
You have also made a slightly less severe suggestion that his career would be ruined ("...is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation)

This is also much more than some vague accusation. While the date and location of the party are unknown, Blasey Ford gave a number of very specific details, including a potential witness (Judge), who says he will resist any effort for him to testify, as well lots of details about the house, clothes, what was said and where and how people moved.  These sorts of details are exactly the sorts of things investigators like to have to test teh credibility of an accusation by testing whether those details shift.

Quote
  She has lost her anonymity.  She'll be viewed as a hero by some people and as a political opportunist by others.  I'm not sure how that tradeoff works teaching in California. 
There's a difference between a victim and a hero.  Overwhelmingly those who believe her see her as a victim -those that don't as a villain. The negative impact going public has had on her life is pretty straightforward.  OTOH, unless he is disbarred for this (in which case he'd be guilty of either the crime or attempting to cover it up) Kavanaugh will still sit on the DC circuit, a rather prestigeous and well paying job.
To hammer this point a bit more - failure to get a promotion to SCOTUS is not 'ruining' one's career. No one is taking away his federal judgeship.

Quote
  Nobody is suggesting not asking these questions.  There just not going along with the disingenuous requests to delay things.  If Ford will not agree to make her allegations under oath and at least have a closed meeting with the senators, there's not much reason to proceed.  As you said, this is not about reasonable doubt, it's about appointing someone to SCOTUS.  That's a political process (as Feinstein has made so clear with her actions), and if Ford doesn't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court, the minimum she has to do is agree to answer questions as part of the political process.

This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

dogboyslim

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #262 on: September 24, 2018, 12:38:57 PM »
Roy Moore still almost won and he had a lot of accusers. As a 30 year old, he was preying on good ol' Alabama girls, too, and not some liberal, elite, Professor in California.

My mother voted for Moore.  Said she was sure he was a sexist A-hole that did everything he was accused of doing, but none of that mattered to her because she hates democrats more.  Said "if it was okay for Clinton to do that, why the hell should I care about anyone else doing it?"  She became a Republican over Clinton & the media's treatment of Juanita Broderick and she hasn't looked back.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #263 on: September 24, 2018, 12:47:44 PM »
“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination"
-Brett Kavanaugh, 7/9/18

As Kavanaugh’s poll numbers plummet, Trump is telling people in private that he was never a fan of Kavanaugh’s selection, sources said. According to two people who’ve spoken with Trump recently, Trump complained that establishment Republicans foisted Kavanaugh on him, because they reasoned Kavanaugh would unite the party in November. According to one former West Wing official, Trump’s first choice was Judge Thomas Hardiman, who served on the federal bench alongside Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry.
-several unidentified sources, Vanity Fair, 9/24/18

I'd like to give some of you the benefit of the doubt, but I've decided to finally declare that anyone defending this nomination is engaged in pure sophistry.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #264 on: September 24, 2018, 12:48:45 PM »
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

Feinstein didn't withhold accusations until they could be corroborated.  She held them so they could not be considered or investigated before the hearings were over.  She also ensured that they would be aired publicly rather than investigated and determined whether there was any corroborating information before doing a public character assassination. 

McConnell engaged in a pure political power play.  He didn't assassinate Garland's character.  I think everybody pretty much acknowledges that Garland was a qualified judge and as far as anybody knows is an upstanding person (If you're really worried about somebody like Trump having too much power, you should like Gorsuch over Garland for at least that reason though).  McConnell just continued the tit for tat escalation that was going on before he got there.  That's extremely unfortunate, but probably an inevitable result of the Supreme Court asserting itself as the "first among equals" as far as the three branches of federal government go. 

So no, their actions are not akin at all.  It's bad that we basically have devolved to the point where Justices will only be seated when the same party has the presidency and the senate.  But Feinstein's actions are still worse.   

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #265 on: September 24, 2018, 12:51:14 PM »
Roy Moore still almost won and he had a lot of accusers. As a 30 year old, he was preying on good ol' Alabama girls, too, and not some liberal, elite, Professor in California.

My mother voted for Moore.  Said she was sure he was a sexist A-hole that did everything he was accused of doing, but none of that mattered to her because she hates democrats more.  Said "if it was okay for Clinton to do that, why the hell should I care about anyone else doing it?"  She became a Republican over Clinton & the media's treatment of Juanita Broderick and she hasn't looked back.
...oh the irony; one can leave a political party for sexual mis-deeds, but not abandon their new party for similar reasons.

What's gone amiss is that it was never ok, ever, for anyone.  Until that becomes clear this is cycle is just going to keep repeating itself.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #266 on: September 24, 2018, 12:57:09 PM »
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

Feinstein didn't withhold accusations until they could be corroborated.  She held them so they could not be considered or investigated before the hearings were over.  She also ensured that they would be aired publicly rather than investigated and determined whether there was any corroborating information before doing a public character assassination. 

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein is the one asking for this matter to be investigated.  In her letter to chariman Grassey
I am writing to request an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh... that the newest allegations of sexual misconduct be referred to the FBI for investigation, and that you join our request for the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford as well as these new claims

Sen. Feinstein is asking that the hearings be postponed until they can be investigated.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. Also, she was roundly criticized (appropriately or not) for NOT airing the accusations publicly, while her office determined whether the accusations had merit and referred to the FBI.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #267 on: September 24, 2018, 01:00:24 PM »
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not on Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 01:07:26 PM by Jrr85 »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #268 on: September 24, 2018, 01:06:56 PM »
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

Feinstein didn't withhold accusations until they could be corroborated.  She held them so they could not be considered or investigated before the hearings were over.  She also ensured that they would be aired publicly rather than investigated and determined whether there was any corroborating information before doing a public character assassination. 

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein is the one asking for this matter to be investigated.  In her letter to chariman Grassey
I am writing to request an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh... that the newest allegations of sexual misconduct be referred to the FBI for investigation, and that you join our request for the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford as well as these new claims

Sen. Feinstein is asking that the hearings be postponed until they can be investigated.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. Also, she was roundly criticized (appropriately or not) for NOT airing the accusations publicly, while her office determined whether the accusations had merit and referred to the FBI.

You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward. 

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #269 on: September 24, 2018, 01:10:00 PM »
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

A number of plausible explanations as to why she didn't release the accusations sooner have been offered yet you continue to insist that the only possible explanations are the ones that support your preferred narrative. In reality, the public doesn't have enough information to say with any certainty what her motives were. That Ford did not want to go public and Feinstein respected her wishes until it was leaked is plausible. That Feinstein was making an effort to corroborate the story is plausible. That she timed the release for political reasons is plausible. You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #270 on: September 24, 2018, 01:13:25 PM »
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

What??  Blasey Ford agreed to testify on Thursday, a week after her allegation became public.  Did you somehow miss that?
Judge has NOT been inverviewed under penalty of perjury, because there is, as of yet, no investigation. 

Quote
Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein was asked by Blasey Ford to retain her confidentiality - which contradicts your assertion that it was unfair to the claimant (Ford). If she sat on it because it wasn't credible, then that's going to come out soon enough, Kavanaugh gets confirmed and Feinstein gets egg all over her face and quite possibly censure by the Senate. If it is credible, then we are moving towards where we ought to go - with hearings and (hopefully) an investigation in the matter.

Quote
You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward
You do realize this is the entire function of confirmation hearings, right?  To determine the suitability of a candidate for a particular position?
You seem annoyed that Feinstein kept the confidentiality of an accuser and didn't initiate a full investigation and hearing, yet you are also angry that now that her name has been made public that she is advocating for these very same things.  Ford's hesitance to testify under oath last week was evidence of her shoddy claim, yet her agreement to testify this week should be discredited because it's 'at the last minute'?

The confirmation wasn't "all but wrapped up" - the committee had not even voted on whether to send it to the entire Senate. There's no reason it can't go on for another week or month - certainly numerous SCOTUS members' confirmations have taken far longer. Would it have been better for Kavanaugh had these allegations come out two weeks ago? I have no idea; the defendant rarely gets to decide when he or she gets accused. Was Feinstein acting "politically" in all of this?  Quite possibly, but she is a politician - but that doesn't mean that these allegations should be dropped or ignored.

Look, serious accusations have been made against a nominee for SCOTUS. This congress has the time. Investigate the claims, have all parties testify under oath, and let the chips fall where they will. If this is somehow a politically motivated smear campaign (as has been alleged by Kavanaugh) that may become clear and the accusers will then be in legal jeopardy. If they are credible under scrutiny that's sufficient to deny someone a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 01:28:34 PM by nereo »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #271 on: September 24, 2018, 01:16:28 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #272 on: September 24, 2018, 01:24:55 PM »
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

What??  Blasey Ford agreed to testify on Thursday, a week after her allegation became public.  Did you somehow miss that?
Judge has NOT been inverviewed under penalty of perjury, because there is, as of yet, no investigation. 

Quote
Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein was asked by Blasey Ford to retain her confidentiality - which contradicts your assertion that it was unfair to the claimant (Ford). If she sat on it because it wasn't credible, then that's going to come out soon enough, Kavanaugh gets confirmed and Feinstein gets egg all over her face and quite possibly censure by the Senate. If it is credible, then we are moving towards where we ought to go - with hearings and (hopefully) an investigation in the matter.

Quote
You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward
You do realize this is the entire function of confirmation hearings, right?  To determine the suitability of a candidate for a particular position?
You seem annoyed that Feinstein kept the confidentiality of an accuser and didn't initiate a full investigation and hearing, yet you are also angry that now that he name has been made public that she is advocating for these very same things.

The confirmation wasn't "all but wrapped up" - the committee had not even voted on whether to send it to the entire Senate. There's no reason it can't go on for another week or month - certainly numerous SCOTUS members' confirmations have taken far longer. Would it have been better for Kavanaugh had these allegations come out two weeks ago? I have no idea; the defendant rarely gets to decide when he or she gets accused. Was Feinstein acting "politically" in all of this?  Quite possibly, but she is a politician - but that doesn't mean that these allegations should be dropped or ignored.

Exactly.

And, lost in all of this discussion is the fact that the GOP suppressed roughly 90% of the documentation about Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White House. So, the idea that somehow Kavanaugh's vetting has been sufficient, and hasn't been subject to basically ramming it through as quickly as possible, is laughable.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #273 on: September 24, 2018, 01:32:25 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.

That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #274 on: September 24, 2018, 01:40:31 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #275 on: September 24, 2018, 01:45:58 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying? A common thread that I have seen is that those who are willing to support the point of view of the accused are willing to go on record, while many who support Kavanaugh will not go on record. This pattern is apparent in reporting by the New Yorker, etc where most of those supporting Kavanaugh were choosing to stay anonymous.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #276 on: September 24, 2018, 01:48:13 PM »
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information

I don't know that you are actually being sincere, but any one of these people and witnesses can lie left and right to the public and through spokespeople. I think having everyone involved speak with either the FBI or Senate under oath may force whoever is not telling the whole truth to do so. And if not, the FBI is (I'm told) very good at establishing verifiable facts and building timelines based on statements, and using that to assess what happened and what level of confidence we may or may not have with regards to those facts that may be based solely on testimony.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #277 on: September 24, 2018, 01:50:17 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has made this claim.

If you're curious as to how evidence of misconduct could become more credible, read through nereo's posts. He's done a pretty good job of laying out how an FBI investigation might be conducted in scenario's like this.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #278 on: September 24, 2018, 01:55:44 PM »
It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

What??  Blasey Ford agreed to testify on Thursday, a week after her allegation became public.  Did you somehow miss that?
I thought she was still "negotiating" over things like having the FBI act first, staffers not being allowed to ask questions, Kavanaugh testifying first, etc.  I did not realize she had agreed to testify without her conditions being met. 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christine-blasey-ford-hearing-conditions_us_5ba44e3ee4b0375f8f9b8332



Judge has NOT been inverviewed under penalty of perjury, because there is, as of yet, no investigation. 

https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1042825426769461249?lang=en



Quote
Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein was asked by Blasey Ford to retain her confidentiality - which contradicts your assertion that it was unfair to the claimant (Ford). If she sat on it because it wasn't credible, then that's going to come out soon enough, Kavanaugh gets confirmed and Feinstein gets egg all over her face and quite possibly censure by the Senate. If it is credible, then we are moving towards where we ought to go - with hearings and (hopefully) an investigation in the matter.
  First, you don't get to lob anonymous accusations at people and have them taken seriously.  But ignoring that, it doesn't change the fact that if Feinstein was going to pass it on, she should have passed it on when she got the information.  Waiting until after the committee proceedings were wrapped up and then leaking the information just ignores Ford's wishes while also ensuring she is tainted with the bad faith of Feinstein.   

Quote
You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward
You do realize this is the entire function of confirmation hearings, right?  To determine the suitability of a candidate for a particular position?
You seem annoyed that Feinstein kept the confidentiality of an accuser and didn't initiate a full investigation and hearing, yet you are also angry that now that her name has been made public that she is advocating for these very same things.  Ford's hesitance to testify under oath last week was evidence of her shoddy claim, yet her agreement to testify this week should be discredited because it's 'at the last minute'?
  You are not reading.  Feinstein violated her duties as a senator by not promptly notifying other senators on the committee of the issue, or at the very least, of asking the nominee about the accusation.  As you said, the entire point of the confirmation hearings is to determine the suitability of the candidate.  Performing her duties in good faith would have involved bringing this issue up before teh committee had wrapped up its hearings. 

The confirmation wasn't "all but wrapped up" - the committee had not even voted on whether to send it to the entire Senate. There's no reason it can't go on for another week or month - certainly numerous SCOTUS members' confirmations have taken far longer. Would it have been better for Kavanaugh had these allegations come out two weeks ago? I have no idea; the defendant rarely gets to decide when he or she gets accused. Was Feinstein acting "politically" in all of this?  Quite possibly, but she is a politician - but that doesn't mean that these allegations should be dropped or ignored.
  The committee proceedings as I said earlier.  That was a mental slip.  But I'm not sure how long the floor debate is going to last now that there is no filibuster and I'm not sure the committee proceedings aren't where the action will be from now on.  Gorsuch had a three day floor debate.  I expect the floor debate to be even shorter in the future but that's obviously just a guess.     

Look, serious accusations have been made against a nominee for SCOTUS. This congress has the time. Investigate the claims, have all parties testify under oath, and let the chips fall where they will. If this is somehow a politically motivated smear campaign (as has been alleged by Kavanaugh) that may become clear and the accusers will then be in legal jeopardy. If they are credible under scrutiny that's sufficient to deny someone a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.
  Congress has time, but at the same time, there has to be some due process.  Minority parties can delay confirmation indefinitely if the rule is anything alleged after committee hearings are completed restarts the process.  This is an uncorroborated claim from three decades ago.  Since it was Feinstein that acted in bad faith, the committee should have Ford testify.  But it should be still be expedited to the extent possible and Ford's attorneys' seeming implication that her cooperation was contingent on controlling the process smacked of bad faith.  If she goes ahead and testifies without conditions on Thursday, then that more or less cures that. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 01:57:18 PM by Jrr85 »

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #279 on: September 24, 2018, 02:00:29 PM »
I think it is completely fair to say that Kavanaugh has misrepresented or lied about several issues involving his work in the GWB White House, even if it doesn't rise to the level of outright perjury. And that's a mighty whopper he said at his nomination acceptance speech I quoted above, no one, and I mean literally NO ONE, believes that Trump conducted the widest and most encompassing search for a SCOTUS nominee in history, as Trump himself repeatedly said he would only consider Federalist Society picks, and is now telling people in private that Kavanaugh was pushed on him by others.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #280 on: September 24, 2018, 02:11:36 PM »
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote

As has already been pointed out in this thread, false accusations tend to be revealed as such fairly quickly when a real investigation is conducted, so claiming "we'll never know" isn't exactly supported by recent history. 

You interview the people involved, getting all of the details you can.  You corroborate or challenge those details based on the other details.  You cross check the stories with verifiable facts like enrollment records and yearbook records.  You interview supporting players.  You build profiles of each character based on their other statements and records, and you see how those profiles fit together with the story each side presents.

In cases of false accusations, false accusers tend to rescind their accusations when challenged with contradictory information, and when it becomes clear no one is taking them seriously anymore.  Notice that virtually nobody in the #metoo movement, however, has been exposed as a false accuser despite public revelations, while many many serial sexual predators have been exposed and been dethroned, issuing public apologies and having their careers ruined even decades after the fact.  Why should Brett Kavanaugh's outcome be any different from Harvey Weinstein's, or Kevin Spacey's, or Louis C.K.'s?

Just maybe, as an outside possibility, can you recognize that powerful white American men have, for generations now, perpetrated sexual assault against women with complete freedom and absence of any professional consequences?  That women have largely failed to report these crimes, out of fear or shame or guilt?

Think of the 3-5 closest women in your life that you know were sexually assaulted.  How many of them reported it right away?  How many more women in your life have been assaulted and are still keeping it a secret?  That's the whole point of the #metoo movement.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #281 on: September 24, 2018, 02:11:56 PM »
Ramirez comes across as very credible in the New Yorker article, and Judge comes across as one who is dishonest about Kavanaugh's behavior.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #282 on: September 24, 2018, 02:19:20 PM »
Ramirez comes across as very credible in the New Yorker article, and Judge comes across as one who is dishonest about Kavanaugh's behavior.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

If I understand this story correctly, Kavanaugh shoved his dick in her face as part of a frat-boy style "joke".  I can name a few dudes from my school days who thought it was funny to teabag drunk people, which is approximately the same level of sexual assault that Ramirez allegedly experienced.  I'm not suggesting that it's not traumatic, just that I can totally understand why Brett Kavanaugh might think this one is just "boys being boys" and not a big deal.  He might even admit it under oath, not knowing any better. 

Perps sometimes don't even recognize the harm they cause.  For example, the only registered sex offender I know personally went to jail for a similar college "prank" one night when he was drunk and naked.  He felt his life was ruined by a silly frat stunt, and to this day considers himself a victim of an overzealous feminized legal system. 

Kavanaugh seems to fit this exact same mold.  He was a hard drinking party boy with a history of lewd and suggestive behavior, but because he was a white male Yalie this was acceptable behavior and not at all disqualifying from becoming a federal judge in the 90s.   Hell, look at what Trump was doing in the 90s and tell me that Kavanaugh is half as bad? 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #283 on: September 24, 2018, 02:27:58 PM »
@Jrr85 - your responses keep focusing on Senator Feinstein's conduct and push this narrative that the conference proceedings were "all but wrapped up".
Is it your position that it is now "too late" to take these accusations into account and to conduct an investigation on the matter?

As you've pointed out, absent the filibuster debate on the Senate floor will likely be a few days at best.  How do you therefor reach the conclusion that we cannot further delay a vote in order to investigate the merit of these claims?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #284 on: September 24, 2018, 02:32:28 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has made this claim.
Perhaps not verbatim, but in so many words.

Quote
If you're curious as to how evidence of misconduct could become more credible, read through nereo's posts. He's done a pretty good job of laying out how an FBI investigation might be conducted in scenario's like this.
Yep, read those, but short of Ford or Kavanaugh personally changing her or his story, I don't think
- Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there, or was there and didn't do that, or
- Ford can prove he was there and did that.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 03:10:48 PM by MDM »

almcclur

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #285 on: September 24, 2018, 03:00:32 PM »
I think it's obvious they need to do an investigation, even though there is very little chance of any real information coming from one. This does seem like the worst kind of political maneuvering, and I think it's good that the Republicans are not automatically dropping him based just on these unproven accusations, even though it might be politically expedient to do so. With how contentious politics have become, you can be sure we'll be seeing this more and more in the future, if all it takes to tank a career is for someone to say you did something without any proof.

Regarding the new one:
"Ramirez was initially hesitant to speak publicly, she told the magazine, partly because her memory contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. She was unsure of his role in the incident at first, but after six days of carefully assessing memories and consulting with her attorney, Stan Garnett, Ramirez told The New Yorker she felt confident enough in her recollections to say she remembers it was Kavanaugh who had exposed himself." https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/kavanaugh-allegation-second-woman/index.html

Holy Crap. She wasn't sure, but then she thought really hard about it (30 years later) and now she's sure. That's problematic, right? Does that give pause to any liberal here? Maybe not about the entire issue of Kavanaugh, but about giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt?

These accusations are not being made in a vacuum. The country is hyper-partisan right now, and some groups have been perpetually outraged since Trump arrived. I know several normal, pleasant, otherwise reasonable people who can get irrationally hostile within a few seconds when a political topic turns up. In this environment, when you ask "why would she lie?" it's not such an easy answer.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #286 on: September 24, 2018, 03:01:45 PM »
what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying?
Now that's a good and reasonable question, particularly if that character is shown to have occurred and persisted beyond his teenage years. 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #287 on: September 24, 2018, 03:08:20 PM »
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote

As has already been pointed out in this thread, false accusations tend to be revealed as such fairly quickly when a real investigation is conducted, so claiming "we'll never know" isn't exactly supported by recent history.

You interview the people involved, getting all of the details you can.  You corroborate or challenge those details based on the other details.  You cross check the stories with verifiable facts like enrollment records and yearbook records.  You interview supporting players.  You build profiles of each character based on their other statements and records, and you see how those profiles fit together with the story each side presents.
When the events are recent, given access to tweets, cell phone locations, etc., I agree: evidence may be plentiful.

Quote
Just maybe, as an outside possibility, can you recognize that powerful white American men have, for generations now, perpetrated sexual assault against women with complete freedom and absence of any professional consequences?  That women have largely failed to report these crimes, out of fear or shame or guilt?
Yes, and you can remove "powerful white American" and still have a true statement.

charis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #288 on: September 24, 2018, 03:16:45 PM »
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has made this claim.
Perhaps not verbatim, but in so many words.

Quote
If you're curious as to how evidence of misconduct could become more credible, read through nereo's posts. He's done a pretty good job of laying out how an FBI investigation might be conducted in scenario's like this.
Yep, read those, but short of Ford or Kavanaugh personally changing his or her story, I don't think
- Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there, or was there and didn't do that, or
- Ford can prove he was there and did that.

That's absurd.  Of course it could be proven without any party changing his or her story.  Presumably that's why an investigation is being requested.  If Judge truly confessed to his former girlfriend about similar behavior and other incidents from that period, I dare say there are others that might be aware of it.  The yearbook stuff, if accurately reported, tends to suggest that such behavior was either boasted about or at least not well hidden. 

Therefore, it seems that it wouldn't be difficult for relevant information from that period, and perhaps more recent periods, to turn up during a very thorough investigation.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 03:18:45 PM by jezebel »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #289 on: September 24, 2018, 03:20:18 PM »
  For example, the only registered sex offender I know personally went to jail for a similar college "prank" one night when he was drunk and naked.  He felt his life was ruined by a silly frat stunt, and to this day considers himself a victim of an overzealous feminized legal system. 



These registries should only be reserved for the most heinous of crimes and so I agree with him that the legal system can become too focused on law and order and not on common sense.
Ultimately, these registries are a form of double jeopardy and should be made illegal under the US Constitution.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #290 on: September 24, 2018, 03:22:59 PM »
what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying?
Now that's a good and reasonable question, particularly if that character is shown to have occurred and persisted beyond his teenage years.

Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #291 on: September 24, 2018, 03:33:00 PM »
...short of Ford or Kavanaugh personally changing his or her story, I don't think
- Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there, or was there and didn't do that, or
- Ford can prove he was there and did that.
That's absurd.  Of course it could be proven without any party changing his or her story.  Presumably that's why an investigation is being requested.  If Judge truly confessed to his former girlfriend about similar behavior and other incidents from that period, I dare say there are others that might be aware of it.  The yearbook stuff, if accurately reported, tends to suggest that such behavior was either boasted about or at least not well hidden. 

Therefore, it seems that it wouldn't be difficult for relevant information from that period, and perhaps more recent periods, to turn up during a very thorough investigation.
I don't agree with your estimation of the difficulty, but also don't think it is absurd.  You may not agree with my estimation of the difficulty but I don't it's absurd either. ;)

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #292 on: September 24, 2018, 03:53:02 PM »
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote

As has already been pointed out in this thread, false accusations tend to be revealed as such fairly quickly when a real investigation is conducted, so claiming "we'll never know" isn't exactly supported by recent history. 

You interview the people involved, getting all of the details you can.  You corroborate or challenge those details based on the other details.  You cross check the stories with verifiable facts like enrollment records and yearbook records.  You interview supporting players.  You build profiles of each character based on their other statements and records, and you see how those profiles fit together with the story each side presents.

In cases of false accusations, false accusers tend to rescind their accusations when challenged with contradictory information, and when it becomes clear no one is taking them seriously anymore.  Notice that virtually nobody in the #metoo movement, however, has been exposed as a false accuser despite public revelations, while many many serial sexual predators have been exposed and been dethroned, issuing public apologies and having their careers ruined even decades after the fact.  Why should Brett Kavanaugh's outcome be any different from Harvey Weinstein's, or Kevin Spacey's, or Louis C.K.'s?

Just maybe, as an outside possibility, can you recognize that powerful white American men have, for generations now, perpetrated sexual assault against women with complete freedom and absence of any professional consequences?  That women have largely failed to report these crimes, out of fear or shame or guilt?

Think of the 3-5 closest women in your life that you know were sexually assaulted.  How many of them reported it right away?  How many more women in your life have been assaulted and are still keeping it a secret?  That's the whole point of the #metoo movement.
  And how many of the accused in the metoo movement have been credibly accused by a single person?  All the ones I'm aware of, it turns out to be a consistent pattern. 

Contrast that with Kavanaugh.  One person alleges something happened 36 years ago but the only people she points to as witnesses don't remember the party in question.  Another comes forward with a claim where after 34 years, she wasn't even sure Kavanaugh was the person that did it, but after 34 years and six days, she's decided she's sure.  It's certainly possible both are telling the truth, but they are well short of meeting the burden that should accompany accusations about behavior from more than thirty years ago. 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #293 on: September 24, 2018, 03:54:09 PM »
what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying?
Now that's a good and reasonable question, particularly if that character is shown to have occurred and persisted beyond his teenage years.
Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?
Depends on which "this behavior" you mean. There are currently(?) three behaviors (I believe - please correct me if not):
1) Exposing himself (Ramirez): Not enough to disqualify based on what has been said, even if true.
2) Gang rapes (Avenatti): Too vague to understand what Kavanaugh is supposed to have done.  In the extreme of Kavanaugh being the ringleader and performing rapes himself, yes enough to disqualify.
3) Ford's claim: That's the toughest call.  Drunk and underage people do stupid things that they wouldn't and don't do as sober adults, but there's also in vino veritas.  I suspect that most opinions on this one are the same as the opinions of Kavanaugh as a justice without this accusation.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #294 on: September 24, 2018, 04:07:15 PM »
Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?

As far as the Ford accusation goes, I'd say, it's absolutely enough to disqualify him, if it happened. The problem is that I'm not sure that it happened... it very well may have, however, it might not have, and I'm not comfortable with punishing someone or denying them a job for something that may have happened. It sets a very very negative precedent and weaponizes unproven allegations. So even if the Ford accusation is true, which it very well may be, I don't think it should be a career ender for Kavanaugh, unless it is substantiated and results in a conviction.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #295 on: September 24, 2018, 04:14:07 PM »
Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?

As far as the Ford accusation goes, I'd say, it's absolutely enough to disqualify him, if it happened. The problem is that I'm not sure that it happened... it very well may have, however, it might not have, and I'm not comfortable with punishing someone or denying them a job for something that may have happened. It sets a very very negative precedent and weaponizes unproven allegations. So even if the Ford accusation is true, which it very well may be, I don't think it should be a career ender for Kavanaugh, unless it is substantiated and results in a conviction.

That's a rather high bar. Not to say they are equivalent actions but by your rules OJ could serve on the supreme court (his arrest didn't "results in conviction".

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #296 on: September 24, 2018, 04:51:48 PM »
Yeah, I understand that... one of the casualties of believing in the innocent until proven guilty principle is that quite a few people who are in fact guilty may not be convicted, and that sucks. I'd still rather have guilty people walk free than threaten the lives or liberties of those who are likely innocent.

I mean, I guess you could make one off exceptions, but I don't think the evidence in these Kavanaugh allegations are remotely similar to the OJ case (not that I'm familiar with that one as it was before my time).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #297 on: September 24, 2018, 04:55:46 PM »
Yeah, I understand that... one of the casualties of believing in the innocent until proven guilty principle is that quite a few people who are in fact guilty may not be convicted, and that sucks. I'd still rather have guilty people walk free than threaten the lives or liberties of those who are likely innocent.

I mean, I guess you could make one off exceptions, but I don't think the evidence in these Kavanaugh allegations are remotely similar to the OJ case (not that I'm familiar with that one as it was before my time).
Should there not be a different standard applied for appointment to a permanent office (SCOTUS) and taking away someone’s liberty (prison)?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #298 on: September 24, 2018, 05:13:31 PM »
As an interesing line of defense, he is claiming that he could not have possibly held down and forcibly groped Ford (or shoved his penis into Ramirez's face) because he was a virgin until "many years after college.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408172-kavanaugh-i-was-a-virgin-through-high-school-and-college

1. Loss of virginity is not what he is accused of.
2. Really?
3. Sure would be interesting if any of his ex girlfriends (or boyfriends?) cared to dispute this.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #299 on: September 24, 2018, 05:31:52 PM »
As an interesing line of defense, he is claiming that he could not have possibly held down and forcibly groped Ford (or shoved his penis into Ramirez's face) because he was a virgin until "many years after college.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408172-kavanaugh-i-was-a-virgin-through-high-school-and-college

1. Loss of virginity is not what he is accused of.
2. Really?
3. Sure would be interesting if any of his ex girlfriends (or boyfriends?) cared to dispute this.
Old frat bros going out of their way to claim they didn't get laid in college, that may be the most bizarre thing I've read all year.