Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72415 times)

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #750 on: September 28, 2018, 11:14:17 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.

Are you shitting me?  It was up to Democrats because they were the only ones with information on the event.  All they had to do was share it with the FBI and it would have been followed up on as part of the background check.  But they didn't want it investigated (or at least Feinstein didn't want it investigated).  She wanted to use it to spring a last second character smear and to try to delay the process. 

So yes, it was up to Democrats to request an investigation about an event that only they knew about.  How would you propose REpublicans ask for that investigation?  "hey, FBI, can you investigate any potential claim that Democrats may be sitting on in bad faith to spring after the committee proceedings are done?"  What is the FBI supposed to do with that.  They already do pretty thorough background checks.  What else could they do to find out whether democrats are keeping a last second allegation in their pocket?   

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #751 on: September 28, 2018, 11:14:49 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?

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #752 on: September 28, 2018, 11:20:55 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #753 on: September 28, 2018, 11:24:53 AM »
Quote
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.

A letter is not a sworn statement.  Neither is a statement to a journalist.  A sworn statement is one made under oath under penalty of perjury.  You're wrong on this one.

I am going by what the AP and CNBC have reported.  Certainly there are plenty of idiots that work there just like other news organizations, so they could be wrong.   

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #754 on: September 28, 2018, 11:26:50 AM »
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #755 on: September 28, 2018, 11:28:02 AM »
@Jrr85 - you keep repeating "we cannot learn anything" from an investigation and "We will still be in the same place" should an investigation take place.
As myself and many, many others have pointed out, that is not a foregone conclusion. 
Why are you so resistant to further scrutiny, particularly when it could be completed well before the midterm elections (even now)? If Ford is lying and committed perjury, why not find that out?  If the same is true for the man nominated to SCOTUS, it seems even more important.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #756 on: September 28, 2018, 11:28:48 AM »
After watching the testimonies, this is apparent to me:

Kavanaugh is unfit for the supreme court. Full stop. He is unfit for reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the accusations made against him. I think a Supreme Court Justice should conduct themselves with more control and professionalism than B.K. did during his testimony. While I am sure that an accusation of this type, true or false, can be stressful but I don't think that's an excuse for how he handled himself.

That said, this issue is owed an FBI investigation.
Shame on Trump and the republicans for not calling for one as soon as this broke. and double shame on Fienstien/Democrats for not calling for one as soon as they had this information. The timing of the release of this was clearly calculated for maximum impact and shows how cynically the Democrat's view the #meToo movement... they view it as a tool for their political purposes, not as a means of getting victim's justice.

Anyway, we'll see how the vote goes.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #757 on: September 28, 2018, 11:29:17 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?

It's apparently different things to different people.  I was just pointing out that them being considered left wing is not new.  I don't consider their endorsements to be particularly helpful.  They usually can't tell you anything you wouldn't know by looking at the nominee's resume.  And the only time I've paid attention enough to look at someone they gave a poor rating to it was obviously political.  But I've never paid attention to any nominations for district court judge, so they may provide more usual information for those nominees that don't have much of a public track record. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #758 on: September 28, 2018, 11:29:38 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

Even if we assume that you're correct (which is quite debatable) at least you'll be able to say that you did all that could be done to get to the truth of the matter.  As it stands now, opposing an investigation is obstructing at attempt to get to the truth.  Surely an investigation would improve your own position - regardless of the outcome?


But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

She did refer the information to the FBI though, redacting the information that could have identified the accuser who at the time did not want to go public with the information.

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.  I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html



Clearly the redacted information was insufficient for the FBI to investigate.  Should she have broken the confidence of the woman who told her about the sexual assault but didn't want to be identified in a partisan effort to have Kavenaugh outed as a sexual predator?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #759 on: September 28, 2018, 11:30:05 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #760 on: September 28, 2018, 11:31:28 AM »
If I understand correctly, part of the issue with Kavanaugh is the threat to Roe V Wade. Problem is Roe V Wade is going to have to be reconsidered as advances in Genetic Engineering technology happen. (If a woman wants to edit the genetics of her fetus, can anyone argue no?)

Seems to me that Democrats are kicking the issue down the road.

As for the assault, there should be an investigation. It is just how modern day confirmation hearings work.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #761 on: September 28, 2018, 11:33:01 AM »
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Where is he opposing it?  I did not see the entire proceedings, but the only questions I saw he said he would welcome whatever process the committee recommended.  I'm sure he would prefer to not have another week for ridiculous allegations to be parroted by democrats, but it's not up to him to decide the process (any more than it was up to Ford) and of course he's not going to be the one to recommend that the circus be extended. 

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: PNW
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #762 on: September 28, 2018, 11:33:08 AM »
That said, this issue is owed an FBI investigation.
Shame on Trump and the republicans for not calling for one as soon as this broke. and double shame on Fienstien/Democrats for not calling for one as soon as they had this information. The timing of the release of this was clearly calculated for maximum impact and shows how cynically the Democrat's view the #meToo movement... they view it as a tool for their political purposes, not as a means of getting victim's justice.

Couldn't have said it better.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #763 on: September 28, 2018, 11:36:22 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?

It's apparently different things to different people.  I was just pointing out that them being considered left wing is not new.  I don't consider their endorsements to be particularly helpful.  They usually can't tell you anything you wouldn't know by looking at the nominee's resume.  And the only time I've paid attention enough to look at someone they gave a poor rating to it was obviously political.  But I've never paid attention to any nominations for district court judge, so they may provide more usual information for those nominees that don't have much of a public track record.

Fair enough. Foxnews has shifted its stance, though. The endorsement was a badge of honor; now, it's part of the left-wing smear campaign. That's not an unexpected shift, of course.

To their credit, none of the Senators have turned on the ABA. That would be pretty embarrassing when, just yesterday, Grassley was using it in a "whip" speech during the proceedings.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #764 on: September 28, 2018, 11:37:04 AM »
If I understand correctly, part of the issue with Kavanaugh is the threat to Roe V Wade. Problem is Roe V Wade is going to have to be reconsidered as advances in Genetic Engineering technology happen. (If a woman wants to edit the genetics of her fetus, can anyone argue no?)

Seems to me that Democrats are kicking the issue down the road.

As for the assault, there should be an investigation. It is just how modern day confirmation hearings work.

Just as concerning is the Gamble case which starts hearing arguments this Friday. 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #765 on: September 28, 2018, 11:37:46 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything 

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #766 on: September 28, 2018, 11:41:20 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything

Alcoholism. Alcoholics forget things.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #767 on: September 28, 2018, 11:41:29 AM »
That said, this issue is owed an FBI investigation.
Shame on Trump and the republicans for not calling for one as soon as this broke. and double shame on Fienstien/Democrats for not calling for one as soon as they had this information. The timing of the release of this was clearly calculated for maximum impact and shows how cynically the Democrat's view the #meToo movement... they view it as a tool for their political purposes, not as a means of getting victim's justice.

Couldn't have said it better.


You seriously think Feinstein was playing partisan games by respecting Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality and to not share the information publically???  That is just sad. 

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #768 on: September 28, 2018, 11:42:34 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

Even if we assume that you're correct (which is quite debatable) at least you'll be able to say that you did all that could be done to get to the truth of the matter.  As it stands now, opposing an investigation is obstructing at attempt to get to the truth.  Surely an investigation would improve your own position - regardless of the outcome?


But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

She did refer the information to the FBI though, redacting the information that could have identified the accuser who at the time did not want to go public with the information.

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.  I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html



Clearly the redacted information was insufficient for the FBI to investigate.  Should she have broken the confidence of the woman who told her about the sexual assault but didn't want to be identified in a partisan effort to have Kavenaugh outed as a sexual predator?

According to that source, she didn't refer the letter until Wednesday, September 12th. 

As far as whether she should have broken confidence or not, she should have done it or not in July. 

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #769 on: September 28, 2018, 11:43:31 AM »
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Where is he opposing it?  I did not see the entire proceedings, but the only questions I saw he said he would welcome whatever process the committee recommended.  I'm sure he would prefer to not have another week for ridiculous allegations to be parroted by democrats, but it's not up to him to decide the process (any more than it was up to Ford) and of course he's not going to be the one to recommend that the circus be extended.

Well he was asked point blank on several occasions and never gave a straight yes or no answer. So one could claim he didn't oppose it while also claiming he didn't accept an investigation. And why not welcome an investigation, if it will clear his name? Seems only logical. Kavanaugh also declined to endorse the ideal of testimony from Judge. Why did the Republicans decline to subpoena Judge?

You can attempt to downplay the role the Republicans are playing all you want. They most certainly don't want an investigation and will stifle it at every attempt.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #770 on: September 28, 2018, 11:44:15 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything

Alcoholism. Alcoholics forget things.

They generally don't forget that they are alcoholics, even if theyh dont' admit it by name.  So that wouldn't be a separate possibility from lying.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #771 on: September 28, 2018, 11:49:15 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

Even if we assume that you're correct (which is quite debatable) at least you'll be able to say that you did all that could be done to get to the truth of the matter.  As it stands now, opposing an investigation is obstructing at attempt to get to the truth.  Surely an investigation would improve your own position - regardless of the outcome?


But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

She did refer the information to the FBI though, redacting the information that could have identified the accuser who at the time did not want to go public with the information.

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.  I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html



Clearly the redacted information was insufficient for the FBI to investigate.  Should she have broken the confidence of the woman who told her about the sexual assault but didn't want to be identified in a partisan effort to have Kavenaugh outed as a sexual predator?

According to that source, she didn't refer the letter until Wednesday, September 12th. 

As far as whether she should have broken confidence or not, she should have done it or not in July.

I guess I don't understand the difference.

The result would have been the same unless she broke confidence, as Ford didn't choose to come forward publicly until it seemed certain that Kavenaugh would be confirmed.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #772 on: September 28, 2018, 11:49:49 AM »
1. Feinstein does not have the authority to call an FBI investigation on her own.
2. Even if the timing of sending the letter was political, that does not change the veracity of the allegations... which seem credible even if not ironclad at this point. Kavanaugh certainly has some temperament and credibility issues coming out of yesterday.

What will an investigation do? At least one of the things will be to conduct consistent parallel interviews that look for documentation of common threads of who/what/where when. This type of information can be quite compelling and is a far cry from the shame-circus we saw yesterday. What did Brett write in every one else's yearbook? Anyone else have a calendar? Does the country club have membership records?

Will the FBI pass judgement? No, of course not. Will they provide an internally consistent and qualified set of common facts, and documentation to work from? Yes. Will there still be gaps and ambiguity? Yes. To think that that would not be the case in absolutely any investigation is just folly and a red herring.

As said above, what if the investigation simply reveals that Kavanaugh repeatedly perjured himself?

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #773 on: September 28, 2018, 11:52:37 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.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything

Alcoholism. Alcoholics forget things.

They generally don't forget that they are alcoholics, even if theyh dont' admit it by name.  So that wouldn't be a separate possibility from lying.

It's been well established that he has in fact lied about his drinking habits and I'm actually not claiming he is an "alcoholic" but rather he had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. Maybe that equals alcoholic?

Anyway, it can be both. He is lying about his relationship with alcohol and if he was so drunk he forgot that he sexually assaulted someone I would consider that "mentally troubled". Beyond that it is also possible that the incident was blocked from his own memory. These events can be traumatic for the perpetrator as well as the victim.

Oh, and your use of "serial" is incorrect. Ford only accused him of one incident.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #774 on: September 28, 2018, 11:53:01 AM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 11:55:35 AM by bacchi »

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #775 on: September 28, 2018, 11:59:35 AM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?

I think they assume he will cave in a general vote. 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #776 on: September 28, 2018, 12:04:41 PM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?

I think they assume he will cave in a general vote.

Probably.

That'll look really bad if they try to hold a floor vote without doing what Flake agreed to with the Democrats though. It gives huge cover to the red-state Dems and Collins and Murkowski.


Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #777 on: September 28, 2018, 12:11:59 PM »
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral(edit; assuming it even happened). But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

Are we done with this yet? You people indeed.  We're fine. But Jesus Christ-what is wrong with you?

1. She testified that she was pushed from behind into the bedroom-forced. Not willing.

2.  He didn't run away.  He fell off the bed with her under him because his disgusting friend wanted to get in on his assault.  In the tumult, she fled from the room and locked herself in the bathroom.  He never stopped of his own accord.  He.did.not.stop.  She escaped.

It's one thing to not believe her testimony, but it's just rotten to argue based on things you are making up for the sole purpose of turning an assault into drunk flirting.  Neither party is claiming your set of "facts".  Also, your whitewashed version is still really gross, and I'm concerned about what you think is acceptable flirting behavior. I truly hope that this is something you are making up out of partisan zeal and that this does not reflect your own moral code.




I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #778 on: September 28, 2018, 12:15:29 PM »
A person can withdraw consent at anytime. Even if she did change her mind (which is NO ONE's version of the events)- that's totally within her right.

heck, they could be mid sex, either party could say "never mind, I want to stop" and if the other person does not stop a consensual situation has turned non-consensual.

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #779 on: September 28, 2018, 12:16:46 PM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and thereís an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isnít confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they wonít like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.


ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #780 on: September 28, 2018, 12:18:58 PM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and thereís an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isnít confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they wonít like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #781 on: September 28, 2018, 12:20:13 PM »
According to that source, she didn't refer the letter until Wednesday, September 12th. 

As far as whether she should have broken confidence or not, she should have done it or not in July.

She did "not in July".  In case you missed it.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #782 on: September 28, 2018, 12:21:19 PM »
Also, his story about the 60k or 200k for baseball tickets is totally fishy.  Who takes out a second mortgage to act as the bank for a group of friends buying baseball tickets?  I've floated 2-3k in  tickets before, but that's about all I'd do for my friends. I certainly wouldn't eat the 2-3k transaction fees associated with a second mortgage because my buddies were inconvenienced in getting me a check for baseball tickets.  Plus, I make more than Brett Kavanaugh.  Who are these friends?  How much are they making?  Why ask the guy on a government salary to float the 60k?  Are any of these friends making way more in private practice (likely)?  Why did they decide on Brett being the bank?  Dr. Ford's story may be difficult to prove, but this story should be easy to verify.  Where are the baseball ticket receipts?

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #783 on: September 28, 2018, 12:25:53 PM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and thereís an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isnít confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they wonít like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
This is right.  Susan Collins made demands before they passed the Tax Bill.  It gave her cover to vote yes and then got ignored.  This is the same bull.

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #784 on: September 28, 2018, 12:26:44 PM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and thereís an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isnít confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they wonít like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
Even if rejected by the committee the nomination can go to a floor vote. Bork was rejected 9-5 and still got a floor vote. Flake just made a lot harder for Republicans to get Collins or Murkowski on board without an investigation.

kenmoremmm

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #785 on: September 28, 2018, 12:37:21 PM »
what happens if kavanaugh is confirmed and ford seeks to continue her case in a private court? i'm not versed on much legalese, but it seems like this particular hearing was for public opinion (5%) and dog and pony for (R) senators (95%) to say they did due diligence.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #786 on: September 28, 2018, 12:42:55 PM »
what happens if kavanaugh is confirmed and ford seeks to continue her case in a private court? i'm not versed on much legalese, but it seems like this particular hearing was for public opinion (5%) and dog and pony for (R) senators (95%) to say they did due diligence.

It is highly unlikely she CAN continue her case. He was a minor at the time, so he would need to be charged as a juvenile. From what I have read sexual assault, at the time, was a misdemeanor, which means it has a very short statute of limitations. They have long since run out.  Since she is not claiming he successfully raped her, there isn't much that can be done.

Whether or not he could be tried criminally really has no bearing on his 'job interview'.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #787 on: September 28, 2018, 12:43:30 PM »
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Have you been following along?   The FBI gathers pertinent "FACTS" and hands them over to the committee to draw conclusions.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #788 on: September 28, 2018, 12:44:39 PM »
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and thereís an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isnít confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they wonít like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
Even if rejected by the committee the nomination can go to a floor vote. Bork was rejected 9-5 and still got a floor vote. Flake just made a lot harder for Republicans to get Collins or Murkowski on board without an investigation.

It takes quite a bit to pull a vote out of committee without the committee passing it along. 2/3, right?

But the committee didn't reject it- they moved it along.

J Boogie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #789 on: September 28, 2018, 12:47:57 PM »
Plus, I make more than Brett Kavanaugh. 

Wexler, more like Flexler. Because you're flexin' on us.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #790 on: September 28, 2018, 12:52:55 PM »
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Have you been following along?   The FBI gathers pertinent "FACTS" and hands them over to the committee to draw conclusions.

The FBI will reach conclusions on the facts - ie a conclusion on what is the truth, where it finds the truth ascertainable.  It will not reach a conclusion on whether or not Kavanaugh should be voted onto the Supreme Court.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #791 on: September 28, 2018, 01:12:55 PM »
Have you been following along?   

I have!

I have been following along as republicans refuse to subpoena witnesses, corroborate testimony, or construct a timeline of events.  I have been following along as multiple accusers have painfully come forward with accounts of their trauma, and as many of Brett's colleagues have come forward to either say they did not see this specific sexual assault committed, refuse to testify about this specific sexual assault (Mark Judge), or to confirm that he illegally drank too much as a minor and sometimes got aggressively handsy with girls before passing out.  I have followed his own admissions of his struggles with alcohol and gaps in his memory, his confirmation that he did attend many such parties, and his admission that he did know and interact with her when he was in high school. 

I have also watched approximately 80% of the country, uncertain about what is true, plead for more information about these accusations and I have watched 48 republican senators refuse to gather any more information.  This part baffles me.  If he's truly innocent, then go ahead and start compiling evidence OTHER than the angry protestation of the alcoholic frat boy accused of this misconduct.  Put all of that evidence together in report, and release it to the public so we can all have the right information. 

I don't know what Brett Kavanaugh did in 1982, and neither do you.  But everyone seems to agree that he drank too much, at an age when it was illegal to do so, and sometimes got a little too gropey with girls as a result.  This does not seem at all out of character, for a rich white prep school kid in the 80s, and it is a characterization backed up by multiple witnesses, his own testimony, and contemporary records like his yearbook.  That doesn't mean he attempted to rape Christine Ford, however.

It does mean he has been lying under oath for several weeks now, which isn't a good look for a man who desperately wants us to believe his denials of sexual assault.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #792 on: September 28, 2018, 01:14:26 PM »
Plus, I make more than Brett Kavanaugh. 

Wexler, more like Flexler. Because you're flexin' on us.

To be fair, I don't make that much more.  In any case, a dude making 200k/year has no business acting as the Bank of Brett for 60k in baseball tickets. 

 I've been burned for $500 in similar situations, and that's bad enough. I can't imagine going through the trouble of applying for a second mortgage and then sending polite but firm emails reminding people to pay me back.  Who am I kidding?  Brett probably just gets blackout drunk, devil's triangles, boofs, FFFFFs his friends and their wives, and the money appears.   

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #793 on: September 28, 2018, 01:44:33 PM »
The GOP wanted to confirm a justice well before the midterms to give campaigning members a "W" they could use on the campaign trail.

First they made the decision to limit the release of documents, hoping that would give Dems less ammunition.  That strategy largely failed

When Ford's allegation came out they tried to push the vote through, saying it was the "11th hour" and too late to hold any relevant hearings.  That largely failed, and they had to hold a hearing

Sensing how bad the optics were to have 11 old white men questioning an alleged sexual assault survivor, they hired an outside council (female) to ask questions. She failed to make Dr. Ford less credible, and the GOP senators grew tired of staying silent during Kavanaugh's testimony and came out with effusive praise for someone who had just been accused of being sexual assault and attempted rape. The hope appears to be that putting him on the court is worth the risk of looking like they are supporting a sex offender. Even the kindest reading shows it didn't go particularly well for Kavanaugh.

Now here we are: Flake and Murkowski are calling for
 a limited 1 week FBI investigation. The GOP is weighing the potential risk and reward.  If they deny any investigation they risk losing the vote, and it will be horrific if new accusers (perhaps emboldened by Ford's gripping testimony) come forward in the days to come.  If they push for an investigation they are in an equally tough spot - the best case scnerio is that nothing new emerges, whereas it would be catastrophic if either i) others corroborate parts of Ford's story or if ii) new allegations emerge.  Then they are left with the following choice: dump him or approve. Dumping him then would be the long-term play, but likely infuriate their base just weeks before the midterm. So I'll imagine they'd continue to make the bad choice, and vote, and put every Senator on record.

Avenati is just itching to toss more gasoline on the fire, and every single former classmate, girlfriend and buddy of Kavanaugh just heard him talk about how he was a model student, a virgin and had never blacked out in his life.  It seems extremely likely that at least a few might say "hey, not at all how I remember him".  More than a few probably have some yearbooks, polaroids (remember those?) or letters stashed away in memory boxes. How many of them will spend this weekend digging through them, looking for anything with his name or image on it?

tl;dr - the GOP continues to play a very dangerous PR game.  With each step they are betting that nothing else comes out, and nothing more can be corroborated. 

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #794 on: September 28, 2018, 01:49:51 PM »
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #795 on: September 28, 2018, 01:58:25 PM »
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."

The virginity claim was to me a very odd one to make. It seems to be only to appeal to evangelicals who claim not to approve of sex before marriage (yet repeatedly support adulterous candidates), and Kavanaugh is not up for general election in anything.

It also seems likely a risky thing to say if not true. His claim on Fox was that he was a virgin throughout highschool "and for many years later".  Statistically that's possible, but unlikely.  More to the point, if untrue it would only take one to contradict him, and give then close-quarters of prep-school and college that need not be a former lover. Former roommates, friends, friends-of-former lovers... any one of them could say "hey, i know for a fact you were sexually active!".

Another oddity with that statement is that he *didn't* claim to wait until marriage, nor are the allegations of Ford or Ramirez claiming he had sex.  "I was a virgin" is not incongruous with "I exposed myself."  He did categorically deny sexual assault as well to be fair, but it's still a weird defense.  Like if someone was accused of unsuccessfully shop-lifting a candy bar and they said "I've never eaten candy in my life!"

tct

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #796 on: September 28, 2018, 02:01:34 PM »
Have you been following along?   

I have!

I have been following along as republicans refuse to subpoena witnesses, corroborate testimony, or construct a timeline of events.  I have been following along as multiple accusers have painfully come forward with accounts of their trauma, and as many of Brett's colleagues have come forward to either say they did not see this specific sexual assault committed, refuse to testify about this specific sexual assault (Mark Judge), or to confirm that he illegally drank too much as a minor and sometimes got aggressively handsy with girls before passing out.  I have followed his own admissions of his struggles with alcohol and gaps in his memory, his confirmation that he did attend many such parties, and his admission that he did know and interact with her when he was in high school. 

I have also watched approximately 80% of the country, uncertain about what is true, plead for more information about these accusations and I have watched 48 republican senators refuse to gather any more information.  This part baffles me.  If he's truly innocent, then go ahead and start compiling evidence OTHER than the angry protestation of the alcoholic frat boy accused of this misconduct.  Put all of that evidence together in report, and release it to the public so we can all have the right information. 

I don't know what Brett Kavanaugh did in 1982, and neither do you.  But everyone seems to agree that he drank too much, at an age when it was illegal to do so, and sometimes got a little too gropey with girls as a result.  This does not seem at all out of character, for a rich white prep school kid in the 80s, and it is a characterization backed up by multiple witnesses, his own testimony, and contemporary records like his yearbook.  That doesn't mean he attempted to rape Christine Ford, however.

It does mean he has been lying under oath for several weeks now, which isn't a good look for a man who desperately wants us to believe his denials of sexual assault.

I've been following along as well. I watched every last word spoken during yesterdays proceedings. After watching, I visited each of the major news networks to listen to commentaries. Each one presented a very one-sided view of the facts. When reading these forums, I will occasionally scroll through looking for comments from specific contributors that over time I have found make informed comments. You are one of those contributors. In this particular post, its clear to me, after following the Kavanaugh proceedings for last few weeks, that you have taken a very one-side view of the facts. That's not to say that anything you said was blatantly false, but not a fair representation.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #797 on: September 28, 2018, 02:03:13 PM »

Avenati is just itching to toss more gasoline on the fire, and every single former classmate, girlfriend and buddy of Kavanaugh just heard him talk about how he was a model student, a virgin and had never blacked out in his life.  It seems extremely likely that at least a few might say "hey, not at all how I remember him".  More than a few probably have some yearbooks, polaroids (remember those?) or letters stashed away in memory boxes. How many of them will spend this weekend digging through them, looking for anything with his name or image on it?


Probably not too far from the truth.
Quote

Following Kavanaugh's testimony on Thursday, two former classmates from Yale spoke out that the nominee wasn't being truthful when it came to his drinking habits in college.

"I'll tell you, Chris, 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 question," Lynne Brookes told CNN's Chris Cuomo Thursday night. "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."



Another classmate, Elizabeth Swisher, a Seattle physician, told ABC News that Kavanaugh ran with the varsity basketball crowd in college and drank hard with them, often getting loud and slurring his words.

"I feel like he's perjured himself, and that's extremely problematic," Swisher said. Swisher has previously told the New York Times that "Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him."

Both women were roommates of Deborah Ramirez, who accused an inebriated Kavanaugh of pulling down his pant and waiving his genitals in her face at a drunken college party. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied her allegations.
Image of Kavanaugh with Swisher, in case people were curious if she actually knew him:

Mappocalypse

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #798 on: September 28, 2018, 02:04:10 PM »
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

DaMa

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #799 on: September 28, 2018, 02:05:21 PM »

 There will be a significant minority of people in the country that go to their grave thinking Kavanaugh is a rapist and Thomas is guilty of sexual harassment, despite any lack of evidence. 

There is evidence of both.  Anita Hill and Christine Ford gave sworn testimony.  That is evidence.   Granted it is he said/she said, and neither is enough for a criminal conviction.  Both were enough to make me think that he should have withdrawn and another person nominated.  I'm sure that there is a better person for the job.