Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 58837 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #800 on: September 28, 2018, 02:09:38 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.
Imagine if Kavanaugh had recommended a high fee investment account! Lordy!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #801 on: September 28, 2018, 02:10:24 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.

Supreme Court nominations should not be political.  This is a problem.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #802 on: September 28, 2018, 02:12:16 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.

There is something to be said about one's circle of control.

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #803 on: September 28, 2018, 02:15:12 PM »
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3304
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #804 on: September 28, 2018, 02:16:56 PM »
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.

Lovelywings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #805 on: September 28, 2018, 02:17:56 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.

If nothing he has said about the "facts" as you call them is "blatantly false", what is the problem?

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #806 on: September 28, 2018, 02:18:58 PM »
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

By that logic, several people have also said Kavanaugh is lying, not by deduction, but by what the observed. But of course, you just want to bash Ford, so actual logic doesn't enter this.

Lovelywings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #807 on: September 28, 2018, 02:20:25 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.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 02:23:10 PM by Lovelywings »

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #808 on: September 28, 2018, 02:22:02 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.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus.

Sometimes, but I don't remember our supreme leader ever telling us to ignore politics.

Lovelywings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #809 on: September 28, 2018, 02:26:23 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.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus.

Sometimes, but I don't remember our supreme leader ever telling us to ignore politics.

LOL.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #810 on: September 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM »
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.

Can you imagine a future in which no high government officials are accused of sexual assault, harassment, or rape?  A country totally run by people of such unimpeachable character that nobody would even dream of making such accusations, people whose lives have been carefully documented since childhood to be free of any criminal activity whatsoever?  Does it sound so terrible?

Because Graham and friends have suggested that every nominee from here out will be subject to baseless accusations, despite nobody since Thomas having this problem.  Kagan and Sotomayer and even Gorsuch had no such accusations, and I imagine there are at least a few other judges with similarly noncriminal histories of sexual conduct.  Any nominee who is accused of such things should be able to immediately and enthusiastically call for a full investigation, support any and all new fact finding missions, offer unconditional access to personal records and contacts, and not have to cry about partisan witch hunts or smear campaigns because the evidence should speak for itself.  Why can't Kavanaugh do any of that?

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.

Okey dokey. 

Would you also like to offer a specific criticism of my writing, or a rebuttal to a particular argument I have made, or did you just chime in to express your disappointment with my overall tone?  I would welcome your contributions to this discussion, if you have any.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable with the news today if Kavanaugh was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing by an FBI investigation.  That is the best case scenario at this point, IMO, because I think he's going to be confirmed no matter what the truth is and I would rather we have a SC justice who was a genuine altar boy instead of one actually did all of this stuff (underage drinking, partying, spiking punch to get girls drunk, boorish groping, etc).  In my fantasy world, the FBI finds 20 credible witnesses that say Brett never drank to excess or touched women inappropriately in his life, and finds evidence to discredit the allegations against him as a liberal plot, and we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief that the truth came out.

Do I think that scenario is likely?  Have you ever met a drunk frat boy who respected women?

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #811 on: September 28, 2018, 02:28:42 PM »
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.

Which case is that? The one I found was from 1976.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #812 on: September 28, 2018, 02:32:21 PM »
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.

Can you imagine a future in which no high government officials are accused of sexual assault, harassment, or rape?  A country totally run by people of such unimpeachable character that nobody would even dream of making such accusations, people whose lives have been carefully documented since childhood to be free of any criminal activity whatsoever?  Does it sound so terrible?

We get to be ruled by saints who have no patience for human failings.

Or AI. We could just let computers take over.

And recording every second of everyday does sound more and more reasonable.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3582
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #813 on: September 28, 2018, 02:35:35 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!"


I'm wondering whether one of Kavanaugh's problems is that his audience includes his parents and his wife.  For instance, I don't think revealing his calendar for 1982 has done him any good at all and he must have known that it could be hugely problematic, but his parents will have known about the calendar and would have been highly suspicious if he hadn't used it as evidence.  Similarly, who knows what he told his wife about his previous sexual experience?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #814 on: September 28, 2018, 02:37:25 PM »
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.

Which case is that? The one I found was from 1976.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gamble-v-united-states/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

Can two "sovereigns" prosecute for the same crime?



nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #815 on: September 28, 2018, 02:49:01 PM »
How's this for Irony?

President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #816 on: September 28, 2018, 02:49:09 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!"

He was basically alleged to have been a hard drinking, hard partying, sexual deviant.  Not sure if the allegations that he gang raped people had come out and routinely tried to date rape people had been made at the time of that interview, but it is responsive to the allegations members of the media and other democrats were repeating and the image they were trying to portray.     

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #817 on: September 28, 2018, 02:52:41 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!"

He was basically alleged to have been a hard drinking, hard partying, sexual deviant.  Not sure if the allegations that he gang raped people had come out and routinely tried to date rape people had been made at the time of that interview, but it is responsive to the allegations members of the media and other democrats were repeating and the image they were trying to portray.     

Yeah, but being a virgin and being a sexual predator are not mutually exclusive. I mean, Brock Turner was just dry humping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster.

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 525
  • Location: Here & There
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #818 on: September 28, 2018, 02:57:37 PM »
Okay, yesterday was pretty disgusting.  If I acted that way in a courtroom, I would be held in contempt.  He was belligerent and evasive.  Whatever you think of the allegations, yesterday's performance alone was disqualifying. 

He reminded me of some of our clients.  When we prep someone for a depo, we tell him/her to stay calm, play it straight, answer the question presented, tell the truth, don't be evasive, and don't argue with the other lawyer.  Same goes for in court testimony, even more so, with the added caveat of showing respect for the court (i.e. the judge).  Every now and then, despite our preparation, the client goes ape shit during testimony.  That's what I saw yesterday with Kav.  People who behave that way during testimony absolutely destroy their own credibility.

And don't tell me that's how a "man" is supposed to act because he is a "fighter."  Bullshit.  He's a coward.  A real man owns up to his mistakes.  He was too afraid to "man up."  Kav doesn't have the proper demeanor to be a competent attorney, much less a judge.




Thanks for pointing that out from your professional experience.  I felt the exact same way about what I viewed yesterday.  It was an insult that he and the GOP acted that way.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #819 on: September 28, 2018, 02:58:43 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.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

Who's Jesus. Why is he being brought into this thread. What does the most common Mexican name have to do with scotus

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7859
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #820 on: September 28, 2018, 03:02:06 PM »
How's this for Irony?

President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

It's the right thing to do here. Someone is lying. We all lean the way we think is correct. See what the FBI can dig up. Better than just putting him in the chair.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #821 on: September 28, 2018, 03:02:43 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHBvOImIZNU

My mouth is hanging open. When he is being ever asked by senator Klobauch if he has ever drank so much he does not remember all or some of the night before, he turns it around, and says I don't know, what about you, have you ever been black out drunk. Not once but TWICE. To the senator who is questioning him.

This guy is going to be the next supreme court justice? His sense of entitlement towards getting this position and contempt toward women, showing.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3201
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #822 on: September 28, 2018, 03:05:11 PM »
Okay, yesterday was pretty disgusting.  If I acted that way in a courtroom, I would be held in contempt.  He was belligerent and evasive.  Whatever you think of the allegations, yesterday's performance alone was disqualifying. 

This is exactly my take-away. How anyone could vote 'yeah' for him to SCOTUS after that bile-spitting testimony is beyond me.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #823 on: September 28, 2018, 03:07:40 PM »
President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

And Trump has reportedly agreed.  So it looks like we're going to get an investigation, of some sort, from the FBI after all. 

Any bets on what their conclusions will be?  Will Kavanaugh withdraw before it concludes to avoid having his past exploits exposed?  Will the FBI say "we couldn't determine anything at all" and we'll be right back where we started?  Will they find evidence to prove he perjured himself with his testimony? 

My bet is that the FBI confirms that he was a belligerent heavy drinker when he was underage, that he did often attend parties where multiple people report he touched women inappropriately, that Mark Judge's account confirms Dr. Ford's, and that none of it will matter and they'll confirm him anyway.  They'll write it off as "youthful indiscretions" or some such, and he'll be a SC justice in a week.

Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.  Even if democrats take control of both houses of congress, Trump will be protected by the five republicans on the supreme court, just like he was previously protected by the republican majority in Congress.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #824 on: September 28, 2018, 03:07:54 PM »
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.

Can you imagine a future in which no high government officials are accused of sexual assault, harassment, or rape?  A country totally run by people of such unimpeachable character that nobody would even dream of making such accusations, people whose lives have been carefully documented since childhood to be free of any criminal activity whatsoever?  Does it sound so terrible?

Because Graham and friends have suggested that every nominee from here out will be subject to baseless accusations, despite nobody since Thomas having this problem.  Kagan and Sotomayer and even Gorsuch had no such accusations, and I imagine there are at least a few other judges with similarly noncriminal histories of sexual conduct.  Any nominee who is accused of such things should be able to immediately and enthusiastically call for a full investigation, support any and all new fact finding missions, offer unconditional access to personal records and contacts, and not have to cry about partisan witch hunts or smear campaigns because the evidence should speak for itself.  Why can't Kavanaugh do any of that?
  If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 

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.

Okey dokey. 

Would you also like to offer a specific criticism of my writing, or a rebuttal to a particular argument I have made, or did you just chime in to express your disappointment with my overall tone?  I would welcome your contributions to this discussion, if you have any.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable with the news today if Kavanaugh was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing by an FBI investigation.  That is the best case scenario at this point,
there's literally no possibility that he can be exonerated.  That would involve accounting for every minute of his life of the time between Ford was 15 (and possibly for 15-19 if you credit her therapists notes).

IMO, because I think he's going to be confirmed no matter what the truth is and I would rather we have a SC justice who was a genuine altar boy instead of one actually did all of this stuff (underage drinking, partying, spiking punch to get girls drunk, boorish groping, etc).  In my fantasy world, the FBI finds 20 credible witnesses that say Brett never drank to excess or touched women inappropriately in his life,
this wouldn't help at all.  He's already had plenty of credible people give testament to his good character.  I think in this very thread someone stated something along the lines of not being impressed that he managed to not rape or assault so many women he knew because it didn't mean he didn't rape or assault the other ones.

and finds evidence to discredit the allegations against him as a liberal plot, and we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief that the truth came out.

Do I think that scenario is likely?  Have you ever met a drunk frat boy who respected women?
  Show me on the doll where the frat boy touched you. 

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #825 on: September 28, 2018, 03:12:29 PM »
Trump in a press conference has called Ford a "very credible witness".

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #826 on: September 28, 2018, 03:22:51 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before,

I am totally fine with the idea of all future Supreme Court nominees coming from the ranks of teetotalers or folks who have at least never been visibly drunk in front of anyone before.  Maybe it would be good to entrust people who have never compromised their mental functions with the sacred duty of passing moral judgments that affect the entire country.

I have been drunk lots of times in my life, and I am quite certain nobody would ever accuse of me attempted rape.  On the contrary, you could probably dig up a handful of women who were kind of disappointed I didn't have sex with them when we had both been drinking.  My history is still probably disqualifying for a supreme court justice.

Remember when Justice Ginsburg was withdrawn because he got high once?  Kavanaugh has all but admitted to regularly getting blackout drunk in high school, why is that suddenly okay for a supreme court nominee?  You know that's blatantly illegal, right?  Will the FBi investigation report on his history of criminal underage drinking?

there's literally no possibility that he can be exonerated. 

Sure there is.  The Duke lacrosse team was exonerated.  The FBI estimates that between 1% and 8% of the sexual assault and rape cases they investigate are ultimately abandoned as false for one reason or another, usually because the accuser recants the accusation when presented with contradictory evidence or inconsistencies in their story.  The consequences for making false accusations are especially severe, I might add.

Show me on the doll where the frat boy touched you.

Right on the Jrr.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #827 on: September 28, 2018, 03:36:59 PM »
How's this for Irony?

President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

It's the right thing to do here. Someone is lying. We all lean the way we think is correct. See what the FBI can dig up. Better than just putting him in the chair.
i concur it is the right thing to do.  I was just struck by the irony of the man who has himself been accused of sexual assault and who has railed against FBI special investigations now being coerced into calling for just such an investigation on his own nominee.
Perhaps "karma" would be more apt here?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #828 on: September 28, 2018, 03:46:01 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.


Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
    • Military Saints
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #829 on: September 28, 2018, 04:00:38 PM »
Maybe he'll get dropped in favor of Amy Coney Barrett. It's going to be a bit hard to attack her character. Also, she would be the first justice in many decades to have gone to law school somewhere other than Yale, Harvard, or Columbia.

cats

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 982
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #830 on: September 28, 2018, 04:06:49 PM »
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

This is ridiculous.  In my younger days, there was a lot of pressure to drink at parties, bars, etc, and when I was at gatherings with booze around I would often take a bottle of whatever and then drink it verrrrrrry slowly over the course of the evening.  Often I would wind up leaving the bottle still half full after leaving the party.  I don't find it all that unbelievable that a 15-year old at a gathering with older teenagers would have felt pressure to drink, taken a beer, and then drunk it fairly slowly to avoid taking more.  Sounds like my experience at multiple parties.

For what it's worth, my parents both think a legal drinking age of 21 is ridiculous and my father in particular has been quite open with me about how much drinking he did in college and how he was totally fine with his kids also drinking.  I don't think he would have been that outraged to find out I had 2 beers at a party at age 15, had I done so.  And I really don't think he would care one way or the other if he found out about it now, when it's 20 years in the past.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #831 on: September 28, 2018, 04:09:23 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better. 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #832 on: September 28, 2018, 04:15:50 PM »
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #833 on: September 28, 2018, 04:18:26 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before,

I am totally fine with the idea of all future Supreme Court nominees coming from the ranks of teetotalers or folks who have at least never been visibly drunk in front of anyone before.  Maybe it would be good to entrust people who have never compromised their mental functions with the sacred duty of passing moral judgments that affect the entire country.

I have been drunk lots of times in my life, and I am quite certain nobody would ever accuse of me attempted rape.  On the contrary, you could probably dig up a handful of women who were kind of disappointed I didn't have sex with them when we had both been drinking.  My history is still probably disqualifying for a supreme court justice.
  Nobody will probably ever accuse of attempted rape because you're not being nominated for a supreme court seat, not because you can prevent an allegation simply by being innocent.


Remember when Justice Ginsburg was withdrawn because he got high once?
  I don't remember that.  I do remember the idiocy that led to "I smoked but I didn't inhale".  I think we are less crazy with respect to that issue (obviously not with respect to many others). 

Kavanaugh has all but admitted to regularly getting blackout drunk in high school, why is that suddenly okay for a supreme court nominee?  You know that's blatantly illegal, right?  Will the FBi investigation report on his history of criminal underage drinking?
  Ignoring the fact that he hasn't admitted that at all, it's not suddenly ok for a supreme court nominee.  It's always been ok to my knowledge.  I don't think a prior judge has been asked about his or her drinking habits in high school because we hadn't devolved to the craziness where we pretended it was relevant compared to the behavior in all the decades since then. 



there's literally no possibility that he can be exonerated. 

Sure there is.  The Duke lacrosse team was exonerated.  The FBI estimates that between 1% and 8% of the sexual assault and rape cases they investigate are ultimately abandoned as false for one reason or another, usually because the accuser recants the accusation when presented with contradictory evidence or inconsistencies in their story.  The consequences for making false accusations are especially severe, I might add.
Not withstanding the fact that the allegation was made basically contemporaneously, the false accuser in the duke case named a place and time of her alleged abuse.  One of the first things that helped the case fall apart was the fact that one of the boys she identified had an atm receipt from the time the event was supposed to have taken place.  Short of Ford just confessing to lying or deciding that she misremembered, there's no way the FBI is going to determine that Kavanaugh  never could have been around her for a one or four year period from 36 years ago. 



Show me on the doll where the frat boy touched you.

Right on the Jrr.
I chuckled. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 04:27:28 PM by Jrr85 »

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #834 on: September 28, 2018, 04:19:19 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

So you are claiming that Ford is a crazy making a false accusation.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #835 on: September 28, 2018, 04:24:56 PM »
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.
The third accuser supposedly had at least some level of security clearances.  Future accusers might not be as educated as Ford, but if they aren't crossed, it's not that hard to be come off as credible and they might not put such off the wall stuff in their allegations.   

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #836 on: September 28, 2018, 04:26:06 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

So you are claiming that Ford is a crazy making a false accusation.

No.  How would I know if Ford is crazy or not? 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #837 on: September 28, 2018, 04:27:50 PM »
There is someone in my extended family who was falsely accused of sexual assault. There were no witnesses. He had no good alibi, as he was with the woman when it was said to occur.

Investigation cleared him. She was jailed for false accusations.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1226
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #838 on: September 28, 2018, 04:30:07 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

So you are claiming that Ford is a crazy making a false accusation.

No.  How would I know if Ford is crazy or not?

If you are not claiming that she is a crazy making an accusation, then why is she setting a precedent for crazies making accusations?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4324
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #839 on: September 28, 2018, 04:36:55 PM »
Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.
You forgot the part where he single-handedly kills the other 8 innocent justices who all want to do what's right.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #840 on: September 28, 2018, 05:08:44 PM »
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

Right, and you are presenting this as if its some brand new strategy that people have suddenly stumbled upon and will be used for every single nominee going forward.  You are using that to disregard the current accusations, saying that all future nominees will be dogged by similar 'crazies'.
The problem is that this strategy is as old as politics itself. Accuse a person of some socially taboo behavior and hope he flounders.  But it isn't a frequently used tactic in democracies like ours precisely because it puts the accuser in legal and moral jeopardy. Otherwise we'd see if used all the time, and we don't - hence the reference to former SCOTUS nominees, none of which faced such accusations, even though many faced bitter partisan fights.  Even Bork (perhaps the most notoriously catankerous fight of all) wasn't focused on unfounded allegations.  Where you do see this tactic used frequently is in dictatorships where the court system is weak.

Mappocalypse

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #841 on: September 28, 2018, 05:13:40 PM »

There is something to be said about one's circle of control.

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

The circle of control is exactly correct. Discussion is great and all, but everyone appears to be getting increasingly hostile over something they cannot control (individually).
I see no endgame here other than one side turning into Mob 1 and the other as Mob 2 running headfirst into each other.
This thread interested me enough to make that small quip about things.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #842 on: September 28, 2018, 05:54:15 PM »

There is something to be said about one's circle of control.

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

The circle of control is exactly correct. Discussion is great and all, but everyone appears to be getting increasingly hostile over something they cannot control (individually).
I see no endgame here other than one side turning into Mob 1 and the other as Mob 2 running headfirst into each other.
This thread interested me enough to make that small quip about things.


Enough to make an account and make multiple comments about the thread that really concerns you because it's a thread.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #843 on: September 28, 2018, 06:21:13 PM »

There is something to be said about one's circle of control.

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

The circle of control is exactly correct. Discussion is great and all, but everyone appears to be getting increasingly hostile over something they cannot control (individually).
I see no endgame here other than one side turning into Mob 1 and the other as Mob 2 running headfirst into each other.

This thread interested me enough to make that small quip about things.

stick around long enough, you'll see we just like to debate and pontificate.  Stay even longer and you'll start to notice some posters actually developing their opinions.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #844 on: September 28, 2018, 06:26:21 PM »
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)


MarciaB

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Oregon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #845 on: September 28, 2018, 06:27:17 PM »
I kept wondering this morning why none of the senators mentioned that an investigation would be to Kavenaugh's benefit in the long run. If he's investigated and cleared for instance, he could be then appointed to the bench without a cloud of suspicion following him around (like it still does for Justice Thomas). What's another week when we're looking at decades of service?


Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #846 on: September 28, 2018, 06:28:13 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.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

Not really....  This has become a mob/hag him forum topic.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #847 on: September 28, 2018, 06:28:24 PM »
Interesting. When I talked to guy i am seeing off and on what he thought of this (he's a Republican), he had taken the time to watch Ford's testimony. He said he believes her. From her testimony, that she mentioned this privately before he was nominated for the position, and that he has more motivation to lie than she does. He feels he they should move on and pick another nominee. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 06:29:58 PM by partgypsy »

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #848 on: September 28, 2018, 06:33:26 PM »
President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

And Trump has reportedly agreed.  So it looks like we're going to get an investigation, of some sort, from the FBI after all. 

Any bets on what their conclusions will be?  Will Kavanaugh withdraw before it concludes to avoid having his past exploits exposed?  Will the FBI say "we couldn't determine anything at all" and we'll be right back where we started?  Will they find evidence to prove he perjured himself with his testimony? 

My bet is that the FBI confirms that he was a belligerent heavy drinker when he was underage, that he did often attend parties where multiple people report he touched women inappropriately, that Mark Judge's account confirms Dr. Ford's, and that none of it will matter and they'll confirm him anyway.  They'll write it off as "youthful indiscretions" or some such, and he'll be a SC justice in a week.

Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.  Even if democrats take control of both houses of congress, Trump will be protected by the five republicans on the supreme court, just like he was previously protected by the republican majority in Congress.

Again, the FBI doesn't provide conclusions.  Get with the program, Sol.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #849 on: September 28, 2018, 06:39:46 PM »
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.

So those that have less character in your estimation don't deserve benefit of doubt?  Wow, you sound like a limousine liberal.  Have you considered her political bias may have led to her "truth".  There is a wide variety of possibilities here.