Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72397 times)

charis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #700 on: September 28, 2018, 09:43:45 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video.


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

I remember a house party as an older teen (much more recently than incident at issue) when the police arrived. I did not know the location, the exact year, who the house belonged to, how I got there, where I went after, or how I got home. 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2018, 04:00:28 AM by jezebel »

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #701 on: September 28, 2018, 09:45:34 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening.  I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video.


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I went to my wedding in a car that belonged to my Dad's friend. I couldn't tell you the make, model, or color.  I have no idea how I got home (that was after my honeymoon). I know we went to the airport the next day but I don't know if someone I knew drove me or if we took the hotel shuttle. Of course I can tell you the date, but I couldn't tell you the time of my wedding or reception. I have no idea what time we left the reception.  My Dad wore a tux, but I don't know if it had a cumberbund or a vest. I have NO idea what my vows were, except they were the standard Catholic ones, and I think we went with "honor" over "obey", maybe it was "cherish". IDK. I don't have any clue what the readings I picked were, the gospel was from Matthew. Some details are very clear, like Ford's ability to know her attacker; others didn't stick- as you mentioned there were many parties. The location of the party wasn't super important to her; the action that happened during it was.
(I should also note, I did not drink at my wedding, and rarely do drink at all.)

The events that Ford presented and Kavanaugh presented differ. An INVESTIGATION could help clear that up.  Republicans will not let that investigation happen.
Sworn testimony from other named parties might help. Republicans won't let that be heard.
An investigation could clear Kavanaugh, or make it clear that there isn't enough information to tell.  So why not have one?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 09:54:19 AM by I'm a red panda »

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #702 on: September 28, 2018, 09:46:38 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

Yes, but it's so unlikely as to be ignored. It's also far less likely than forgetting an event that occurred 36 years ago. One "memory" is reinforced every day while the other becomes more distant, an odd choice for comparison. Even so I see an extremely small chance that she is mistaken, perhaps also small enough to be ignored.

Let's be clear, I'm not trying to cast doubt on her statements, just commenting on the notion of "100% certainty". It's debatable whether such a thing even exists but this isn't the place for that debate so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

I was the victim of attempted rape in college, 30 years ago.  I don't remember the exact date or even the exact dorm room, but I can guarantee 100% I will never forget who the hell it was or my feelings of shame when I reported it and the university acted like it was my fault and refused to do anything.  I've been reliving it as I'm sure many other people have been lately. 

That we have gone this far is sad and disgraceful.  Kavanaugh has shown himself to be an angry partisan who will lie over anything.  He could not answer a single freaking question. He refused to say he wanted an FBI investigation.  It's telling that when Rachel Mitchell started questioning him on an entry in his calendar that showed the parties named by Dr. Ford drinking beer on a Thursday in July he stumbled.  Lindsey Graham stepped in and Rachel Mitchell did not ask another question.  Republicans lit themselves on fire with this issue, it's possible they put the Senate in play. 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #703 on: September 28, 2018, 09:48:35 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

Yes, but it's so unlikely as to be ignored. It's also far less likely than forgetting an event that occurred 36 years ago. One "memory" is reinforced every day while the other becomes more distant, an odd choice for comparison. Even so I see an extremely small chance that she is mistaken, perhaps also small enough to be ignored.

Let's be clear, I'm not trying to cast doubt on her statements, just commenting on the notion of "100% certainty". It's debatable whether such a thing even exists but this isn't the place for that debate so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

Trauma, for many victims, IS reinforced daily.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #704 on: September 28, 2018, 09:49:27 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video.


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.

Yes. That is true. But it was "some random party" until that moment. That is my point. As was the party I mentioned above. The actual assault was extraordinarily remarkable. That is what she remembered. Which is completely reasonable.

I remember the first time I was physically assaulted by a man. I remember the scene in vivid detail. I remember who it was. I remember exactly what happened. I do not remember the date. I do not remember the precise address. I do not remember how I got home afterward. I do not remember what I did afterward for the rest of the day. I do not remember what I was doing immediately before it happened -- because up until that extraordinarily remarkable moment, the day was unremarkable.

Are you saying that I was not physically assaulted because I do not remember those details? Because that's what you seem to be arguing about Ford.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #705 on: September 28, 2018, 09:52:57 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video.


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.

Yes. That is true. But it was "some random party" until that moment. That is my point. As was the party I mentioned above. The actual assault was extraordinarily remarkable. That is what she remembered. Which is completely reasonable.

I remember the first time I was physically assaulted by a man. I remember the scene in vivid detail. I remember who it was. I remember exactly what happened. I do not remember the date. I do not remember the precise address. I do not remember how I got home afterward. I do not remember what I did afterward for the rest of the day. I do not remember what I was doing immediately before it happened -- because up until that extraordinarily remarkable moment, the day was unremarkable.

Are you saying that I was not physically assaulted because I do not remember those details? Because that's what you seem to be arguing about Ford.

I'm sorry Kris, in the large quoting, I seem to have gotten mixed up who was saying what. You and I are arguing the same point. I 100% do not doubt Dr. Ford's memory. I think it is not at all unusual that she remembers what she does, and that she does not remember the details she does not remember.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #706 on: September 28, 2018, 09:55:23 AM »
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video.


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.

Yes. That is true. But it was "some random party" until that moment. That is my point. As was the party I mentioned above. The actual assault was extraordinarily remarkable. That is what she remembered. Which is completely reasonable.

I remember the first time I was physically assaulted by a man. I remember the scene in vivid detail. I remember who it was. I remember exactly what happened. I do not remember the date. I do not remember the precise address. I do not remember how I got home afterward. I do not remember what I did afterward for the rest of the day. I do not remember what I was doing immediately before it happened -- because up until that extraordinarily remarkable moment, the day was unremarkable.

Are you saying that I was not physically assaulted because I do not remember those details? Because that's what you seem to be arguing about Ford.

I'm sorry Kris, in the large quoting, I seem to have gotten mixed up who was saying what. You and I are arguing the same point. I 100% do not doubt Dr. Ford's memory. I think it is not at all unusual that she remembers what she does, and that she does not remember the details she does not remember.

Okay, yes, that's what I was trying to figure out, as well.

Texasrunner, however, would seem to believe that I was not physically assaulted by the person I remember being physically assaulted by, because I can't remember every detail before and after the event.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #707 on: September 28, 2018, 09:57:15 AM »
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?

I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.

'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.

So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #708 on: September 28, 2018, 09:59:39 AM »
So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

You're right. It's murky.

How 'bout we have an investigation?

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #709 on: September 28, 2018, 10:00:01 AM »
I'm asking the question to determine what the posters on this board think about guilt.  Whether or not he is qualified for the position is not the purpose of my question.  I can already see that most posters here feel he isn't qualified.

I think there has been a strong thread of thinking that the testimony is very credible and should be investigated by the FBI, not a partisan committee who has not conducted interviews with enough people to have done it thoroughly.

Nobody is saying he isn't qualified in the legal sense. Many are saying that he is not appropriate in the moral, temperament, or partisan (as in, he is gratuitously partisan) sense.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #710 on: September 28, 2018, 10:00:30 AM »

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty?

I found his testimony to be much less credible than his accusers. 

However, I think the fact that those in power refuse an investigation certainly says something.  An investigation can clear someone- why would they not want to do that?

turketron

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 32
  • Location: WI
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #711 on: September 28, 2018, 10:01:31 AM »
Repeating my question for Texasrunner from the other page, but I'm curious what h2r35 says as well:
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

Set aside the entire assault allegation. He's lied under oath about multiple things that have been corroborated by multiple parties besides Dr. Ford. How is this acceptable for a candidate to the Supreme Court?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #712 on: September 28, 2018, 10:03:50 AM »
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?

I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.

'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.

So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.


ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #713 on: September 28, 2018, 10:04:38 AM »
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?

I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.

'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.

So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

After yesterday's testimony, it is irrelevant. He clearly knows what to say "I don't blame Dr. Ford," but not what it means to not blame her "I do blame everyone who took her accusation into consideration."

He said the process was a circus. Yes, it was. A circus that his cronies rigged in his favor by having a prosecutor question his accuser at every chance, but barely letting her approach him. A circus because they insisted on this farse without an investigation. And then Flake goes and makes some damn fool comment about due process? Please. Due process involves fact finding, which takes time.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #714 on: September 28, 2018, 10:05:00 AM »
Repeating my question for Texasrunner from the other page, but I'm curious what h2r35 says as well:
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

Set aside the entire assault allegation. He's lied under oath about multiple things that have been corroborated by multiple parties besides Dr. Ford. How is this acceptable for a candidate to the Supreme Court?
Yes. Plus, consider the vile hatefully partisan comments he made in his testimony yesterday. How is that conduct at all in line with what we'd expect of a SCOTUS appointee?

This isn't a criminal trial, it's a job interview. How anyone can think he's passed it is beyond me.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #715 on: September 28, 2018, 10:06:45 AM »
Quote from: newsweek
“For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament,” said Kavanaugh Thursday evening. “That’s why I have the unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association.”

Quote from: ABA President
“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #716 on: September 28, 2018, 10:07:38 AM »
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.

Absolutely. If You or I were accused of an attack like this we would be investigated. Is it possible that the allegations were fabricated? Sure. Would our privacy therefore be unfairly invaded? Yep. What other way do you see around this predicament?

And I'd take it a step further. Anyone who would like to become a member of the Supreme Court has sacrificed a significant portion of their privacy. They are going to be one of the most powerful people in the country and have already submitted themselves to thorough background checks which if conducted on a random citizen without cause would also be an invasion of privacy.

You or I would not be investigated.  Police would take the alleged victim's statement and possibly just put it aside because a 36 year old allegation that doesn't name a time or place is going to be low priority.  But at most, the investigation would be less than what has already taken place in this case.  They would reach out to the people identified, and when every single person identified by the alleged victim denies any knowledge, including her lifelong friend, they would close the file.  What else could they do?

Fortunately, your view of how police fail to investigate and ignore rape victims is not borne out by evidence:

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/20/west-texas-priest-alleged-sexual-assault-child-during-confession-el-paso-church/716266002/


https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91695&page=1


https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/05/19/priest-arrested-in-wisconsin-after-being-accused-of-abusing-altar-boy-at-least-100-times/

There are many, many instances where the police take an old sexual assault charge seriously, investigate it, and if enough evidence is found they press charges.

Well, one of the ones you cited involved a confession.  One involved somebody who participated in a NAMBLA meeting, and all involved people with known relationships to the victim in question.  That's a little different investigation than "Here's what happened but I don't know where or when, nobody can confirm that I was ever in the same room as the alleged perpetrator, and I can't provide any details that could be corroborated, like how I got to or from the party, a contemporaneous discussion with a third party about the events, etc." 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #717 on: September 28, 2018, 10:08:00 AM »
Set aside the entire assault allegation. He's lied under oath about multiple things that have been corroborated by multiple parties

Hell, let's set aside the assault allegations and the perjury, what about his gambling problem?  Or his drinking problem? 

How about we set those aside too.  What about his failure to report his former boss (now resigned in disgrace) for sexual harassment in the workplace, which he has admitted to witnessing?

The man is a walking shitshow as a judicial nominee.  I can only think of one successful candidate for high office with a worse record for personal conduct and character, but that's the man who nominated him.

The committee will vote to confirm Kavanaugh in approximately 90 minutes.  America, Fuck Yea!
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 10:10:07 AM by sol »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #718 on: September 28, 2018, 10:09:42 AM »
Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

That has been done, just for you, multiple times now.  Why do you keep asking for the same information you've already been provided?  Are you deliberately ignoring it?
  No, a bunch of crap studies that are self referential back to the same BS claims have been provided.  It shouldn't be that hard to find the study that looks at actual incidents of rape and/or sexual assault, provide the definition used, and then the prevalence among different groups.  I'm not going to pour through the crap studies to try to find one that's legitimate.  If it's so well established by research, then it should be easy enough to find a study showing it that doesn't rely on sleight of hand. 

Bumping b/c I'm still curious if a study exists to back this argument up.

Please see the dozens of referenced studies mentioned by Gin and me.  They would be the ones that you called 'crap studies' and dismissed out of hand.
  If they're not crap studies, surely you can point to a definition of sexual assault and/or rape and the number of incidents per that definition? 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #719 on: September 28, 2018, 10:16:19 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay.  It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #720 on: September 28, 2018, 10:19:26 AM »
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

He admitted several times that he and all of his friends drank in High School...?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #721 on: September 28, 2018, 10:20:36 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay.  It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.


Are you referring to the work of the committee chairman's staff?  Who are not law enforcement officers, who are not trained investigators and who are not politically neutral?

In no way is what they did equivalent to what the FBI would do.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #722 on: September 28, 2018, 10:20:54 AM »
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

No.  We don't all agree about this.

The Republican party has fought as hard as possible to prevent people from knowing as much as possible about Kavenaugh.  They refused to release documents about his time with the Bush administration, and they refuse to allow an investigation into the sex assault allegations.

That's kinda the biggest problem with this whole farce of a confirmation proceeding.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #723 on: September 28, 2018, 10:21:02 AM »


'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

Do you seriously think that every potential republican nominee to the supreme Court could have credible accusations of attempted rape brought against them?  I'm concerned for why you would think that...


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #724 on: September 28, 2018, 10:21:13 AM »
Imagine this, for a moment.

Imagine if Dr. Ford refused to answer direct yes or no questions. Imagine if Dr. Ford yelled "let me finish" at Senators while filibustering their 5 minute time windows with drawn out stories of irrelevance. Imagine if a Democratic Senator burst into a screaming fit, raging at the Republican Senators and said "Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham." Imagine if Dr. Ford dodged questions about further investigation. Imagine if Dr. Ford did not want other material witnesses present at the hearing.

Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh was calm and professional and respectful. Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh answered questions clearly, respectfully, and without deliberate distraction. Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh advised he would welcome an FBI investigation in order to clear his name. Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh expressed dismay that his close personal friend and alleged witness to the incident in question was not present in order to testify under oath.

Now tell me if the result of this "investigation" would have been any different.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #725 on: September 28, 2018, 10:22:04 AM »


'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

Do you seriously think that every potential republican nominee to the supreme Court could have credible accusations of attempted rape brought against them?  I'm concerned for why you would think that...


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Seems h2r is under the impression that every guy in society has attempted to rape someone at one point or another.

turketron

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 32
  • Location: WI
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #726 on: September 28, 2018, 10:23:07 AM »
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

He admitted several times that he and all of his friends drank in High School...?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2018/09/25/ea5e50d4-c0eb-11e8-9005-5104e9616c21_story.html?utm_term=.124555ba81f2&noredirect=on
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

Quote
“I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh’s characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking questions. There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. In fact, I would witness to the night that he got tapped into that fraternity, and he was stumbling drunk in a ridiculous costume saying really dumb things. I can almost guarantee that there’s no way that he remembers that night … There were a lot of emails and a lot of texts flying around about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today.”

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #727 on: September 28, 2018, 10:24:01 AM »
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

He admitted several times that he and all of his friends drank in High School...?

He also earlier said in the proceedings that he didn't ever remember getting blackout drunk.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #728 on: September 28, 2018, 10:27:10 AM »

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof.


It is the points bolded above that I disagree with.  They certainly could be proven, but it is possible they will remain unresolved.  That possibility should not preclude us from trying to do whatever we can to ascertain the truth.

Quote
If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.
The victims of sexual assault rarely report, and sexual predators tend to prey on people who are least likely to report - younger, shy, etc.
I abhor the term 'lost control of himself' as a description of sexual assault. Once is not ok.  Think about how absurd a defense it would be for a person who had robbed three banks to say "I lost control of myself - this isn't me". 


Quote
So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.
If he is confirmed, there is every expectation that he will sit as a justice for at least a quarter century. Impeachment carries a much higher standard than appointment, ergo it would be much harder to impeach than confirm.
What frustrates me most is that this appointment is likely going to be generational, and the GOP will control the senate and WH for at least three more months.  The argument that we need to get this done now is entirely political.  If it were only political that would be ok, but now this is an issue of jurisprudence.  As a matter of law, it is only proper to investigate direct criminal accusations made before appointing someone to a lifetime position, especially when that person will then be making decisions about how our judicial system functions.

Quote
So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty?
I wrote about this in detail about two pages back. In short his conduct at this hearing was disqualifying to me, even if one ignored these accusations entirely. No one has a right to be on SCOTUS, it is both an honor and priviledge to serve, yet Kavanaugh's entire attitude was about how he deserved to be on the court, how unfair these proceedings were for him, and how he despised the democratic Senators for doing the things which were clearly in their purview under the constitution and previous precedent.

That said, I found Dr Ford credible and it is particularly noteworthy to me that she has volunteered to be investigated, polygraphed, interviewed, cross examined.  In sharp contrast, Kavanaugh complained loudly about the hearings, did not invite further investigation, and views the entire process as insulting. He absolutely refused to answer several direct questions and 'ran out the clock' - choosing instead to repeat how qualified he was for the job (which has never been a matter of contention).  His supporters did not allow other witnesses to testify either to corroborate or to provide exculpatory testimony.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #729 on: September 28, 2018, 10:27:19 AM »


'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

Do you seriously think that every potential republican nominee to the supreme Court could have credible accusations of attempted rape brought against them?  I'm concerned for why you would think that...


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Certainly, no democrat was happy about the Gorsuch nomination.  There were no rape allegations brought against him.


Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #730 on: September 28, 2018, 10:32:09 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #731 on: September 28, 2018, 10:36:19 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

I think this is the heart of it.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #732 on: September 28, 2018, 10:42:19 AM »
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator. Private and govt positions routinely go through very thorough vetting procedures. In certain jobs they specifically ask previous aquaintances about your character. Nothing in these hearings is out of bounds for determining the next justice who will likely decide cases and fates of millions of Americans for the next 20-30 years.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 10:48:10 AM by Johnez »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #733 on: September 28, 2018, 10:46:16 AM »
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator.

Yup. This is why Kavanaugh, Trump, and the GOP refuse to allow an investigation. Because Kavanaugh's whole confirmation rests on a bed of lies. So he'd have to commit a serious federal crime if the FBI investigates. And he would almost certainly be found out.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #734 on: September 28, 2018, 10:47:07 AM »
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator.

Right. It's telling that the accused doesn't want an investigation.


(Wow, Booker can talk. Yield already!)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #735 on: September 28, 2018, 10:48:13 AM »
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator.

Right. It's telling that the accused doesn't want an investigation.


(Wow, Booker can talk. Yield already!)

LOL! Everything Booker says these days is a campaign speech. So, yeah.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #736 on: September 28, 2018, 10:51:50 AM »
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #737 on: September 28, 2018, 10:53:36 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #738 on: September 28, 2018, 10:57:15 AM »
If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

How do you figure?  Feinstein has been calling for an investigation for weeks.  Republicans have been refusing.  Do you want an investigation, or not?  Keep in mind it would stall the vote by about a week, still well before the upcoming election

As for "getting what they want" I still think Kav will be confirmed, without an investigation, despite these credible allegations and without offering any serious defense for his behavior.  That doesn't look like "getting what they want" to me at all.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #739 on: September 28, 2018, 10:58:17 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

And no one ever seems to ask why it was up to the Democrats to request such an investigation. I mean, beyond dereliction of duty by the leading Republicans, but of course we can't talk about that.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #740 on: September 28, 2018, 11:00:24 AM »
Blumenthal is speaking truth. Kavanaugh had rancor yesterday.

Foxnews has this headline,

Quote from: foxnews
New York Times slammed for depicting Ford as calm, Kavanaugh as angry: ‘Photos are the perfect liberal narrative’

I assume that's for people who didn't have the time to watch any of the proceedings. He was definitely angry. That was the whole "turning point" of the proceedings!

And now the ABA is "left-wing." That's the first time I've ever heard the ABA called that. It's laughable.

Quote from: foxnews
The left-wing American Bar Association, which had previously given Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh a strong rating, on late Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the vote to confirm him pending a full FBI investigation, according to multiple reports.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #741 on: September 28, 2018, 11:02:14 AM »
Three days.
When George H W Bush directed the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations it took them three days.
This could have been done already, and the vote could be occurring in exactly the same timeframe.

Instead the GOP is going to vote on a nominee after some gut-wrenching testimony and a rather chaotic public hearing.

Damage has already been done to SCOTUS, and there is the potential for it to be much, much worse should new testimony come out anytime in the next several months. If Dems somehow gain control of the Senate they will be able to hold hearings and subpoena a whole list of people including Mike Judge.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #742 on: September 28, 2018, 11:03:40 AM »
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #743 on: September 28, 2018, 11:04:23 AM »


I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.
And that is hyperbole. ;)

You know what I mean, she has no corroborating evidence. From everything I have researched, while investigating for my posts for this morning, indicates there is no mechanism to even initiate an investigation.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #744 on: September 28, 2018, 11:06:57 AM »


I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.
And that is hyperbole. ;)

You know what I mean, she has no corroborating evidence. From everything I have researched, while investigating for my posts for this morning, indicates there is no mechanism to even initiate an investigation.

The judiciary committee or President Trump could request an investigation.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #745 on: September 28, 2018, 11:08:10 AM »
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

And no one ever seems to ask why it was up to the Democrats to request such an investigation. I mean, beyond dereliction of duty by the leading Republicans, but of course we can't talk about that.

Nobody asks it because finding a member of the Republican party taking a morally defensible position in this day and age is akin to finding a leprechaun riding a unicorn.  The party sold whatever remaining principals they may have had in the deal that made Trump their leader.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #746 on: September 28, 2018, 11:09:28 AM »


I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.
And that is hyperbole. ;)

You know what I mean, she has no corroborating evidence. From everything I have researched, while investigating for my posts for this morning, indicates there is no mechanism to even initiate an investigation.

The judiciary committee or President Trump could request an investigation.

Yes.  For a precident, see Anita Hill.  President George W H Bush instructed the FBI to investigate the claims Hill had made.
HOnestly, what are you possibly researching that would lead you to that conclusion?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #747 on: September 28, 2018, 11:09:36 AM »
Blumenthal is speaking truth. Kavanaugh had rancor yesterday.

Foxnews has this headline,

Quote from: foxnews
New York Times slammed for depicting Ford as calm, Kavanaugh as angry: ‘Photos are the perfect liberal narrative’

I assume that's for people who didn't have the time to watch any of the proceedings. He was definitely angry. That was the whole "turning point" of the proceedings!

And now the ABA is "left-wing." That's the first time I've ever heard the ABA called that. It's laughable.

Quote from: foxnews
The left-wing American Bar Association, which had previously given Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh a strong rating, on late Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the vote to confirm him pending a full FBI investigation, according to multiple reports.

Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #748 on: September 28, 2018, 11:10:34 AM »
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #749 on: September 28, 2018, 11:11:36 AM »
Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed.

Yesterday, the ABA was being used as an endorsement for Kavanaugh. Today, it's "left-wing" and to be dismissed. Which is it?