Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72411 times)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #850 on: September 28, 2018, 06:41:21 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)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #851 on: September 28, 2018, 06:41:48 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?

You're missing the point that the right thinks the left is delaying so that the nomination confirmation takes place after the November elections.  This is ALL politically motivated on both sides.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #852 on: September 28, 2018, 06:47:37 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.

perhaps you missed this comment from former plater upthread:
Quote

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.

i believe that iswhat all of us mean when we say an investigation my provide some conclusions, particularly along the most contested but verifiable points (i.e. Kavanaugh's level and frequency of drinking)

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #853 on: September 28, 2018, 06:50:41 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)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

If this were in court she would be asked those questions.  If everyone wants to pull the "further investigation by the FBI" card, then we need to hold this to those standards.  Doing otherwise would be unjust to Kavanaugh.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #854 on: September 28, 2018, 06:51:58 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.

perhaps you missed this comment from former plater upthread:
Quote

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.

i believe that iswhat all of us mean when we say an investigation my provide some conclusions, particularly along the most contested but verifiable points (i.e. Kavanaugh's level and frequency of drinking)

A conclusion involves guilt.  The FBI will not determine guilt.  They will provide evidence.  Period.

JanetJackson

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Location: United States
    • How I actually made $50 just for taking a survey and being in the healthcare marketplace
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #855 on: September 28, 2018, 06:52:29 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.
@hoping2retire35  @Wexler
I was hoping to stay away from this thread as it's giving me a dang headache, but I just could not stop thinking about what hoping2retire35 said here... it's... shocking, for lack of a better word.
This is what you would refer to as "flirting?"  That's unacceptable.  Both the behavior AND the dismissive tone you are using to describe it.  If what she said happened did indeed happen, it's TEXTBOOK ASSAULT, not "flirting gone wrong". 
These types of comments  shine a spotlight on the attitudes and beliefs in our society that are problematic.  Like problematic in ways that get people harassed, assaulted, and raped. 
Groping someone is not flirting. 
Covering someones mouth when they try to scream is not flirting. 
....I don't even know what else to say.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #856 on: September 28, 2018, 06:57:56 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.


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)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

If this were in court she would be asked those questions.  If everyone wants to pull the "further investigation by the FBI" card, then we need to hold this to those standards.  Doing otherwise would be unjust to Kavanaugh.
Why?  An FBI investigation doesn't involve court.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #857 on: September 28, 2018, 06:59:57 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)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

Questioning her about her drinking at the "event" or "party" doesn't suggest anything other than she may have not remembered who did what".   It doesn't have anything to do with culpability. Obviously, someone who has been sexually assaulted and their condition at the time have nothing to do with the victim being culpable.  That would be unacceptable and really disturbing.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #858 on: September 28, 2018, 07:09:45 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)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

If this were in court she would be asked those questions.  If everyone wants to pull the "further investigation by the FBI" card, then we need to hold this to those standards.  Doing otherwise would be unjust to Kavanaugh.
Why?  An FBI investigation doesn't involve court.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

The left felt that statement given and entered into the Senate record by those that were supposedly present wasn't good enough.  They felt that being questioned by the FBI and lying would make it a federal offense and that was the reasoning for more investigation.  If someone is being questioned by the FBI and they provide false information, they can be charged with various crimes which are considered felonies. 

More so, anyone that lies to the Senate or Congress can be prosecuted for a Felony Federal Offense.  Why should questions during her testimony be any different than those question in a court?  It is done under oath.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #859 on: September 28, 2018, 07:18:07 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.

Less character deserve less benefit of doubt?  Yes. If you have shown to be of poor character, I will doubt your statements.

Low education doesn't mean poor character, Poor doesn't mean poor character. Odd dress doesn't mean poor character.  None of those things taken on it's own would make me question your character. "People of Walmart" characterization was poor on my part. Hell, I shop at Walmart.

But had Dr. Ford had behaved as Kavanaugh did, I would question hers.  If she was irratic and unclear, I'd wonder if she was paid for the story. If it seemed she had something to gain, I'd question her more. She had everything to lose making this accusation. That's why I bring up she's a well educated professional. She's not looking to milk this into reality TV appearances on some half rate cable channel.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 07:19:54 PM by I'm a red panda »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #860 on: September 28, 2018, 07:41:03 PM »
Amazing that "I went to Yale" was used as a defense by Kavanaugh to sexual assault allegations.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #861 on: September 28, 2018, 07:45:18 PM »
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

Yikes.

Kavanaugh proved himself to be the political operative that he is. No nominee worthy of the Supreme Court would go the conspiracy route as he did.  He had the audacity to ask a sitting Senator if she drank to the point of blacking out.  Truth aside on the allegations, he is unqaulified to serve on the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter.

Also, Avenatti will apparently be dropping new information this weekend and that guy does not mess around.

BZB

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
  • Location: Houston, Texas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #862 on: September 28, 2018, 07:57:23 PM »
Watching all this play out has made for a stressful few days. Randy Rainbow is helping to keep me sane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gG0-6Ntx7w.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #863 on: September 28, 2018, 08:40:21 PM »
I do believe this is partially political.  Everything with the Senate is to a certain degree.  On the other hand, I believe many people, including myself, watched two people testify.  One was credible...it was clear that she made he accusations prior to Trump winning the election (therapy records) and before Kavanaugh was the nominee (July 6th tip).  She didn't make up facts when she could have.  She acknowledged that she didn't have all the information that she wanted to.  There was nothing about her testimony that felt contrived or exaggerated.  This shouldn't matter (but it does) - she came across as a nice person.  She also welcomed an FBI investigation.

In contrast, Kavanaugh came off like an entitled-A-hole.  I understand being upset that your past is being used as political info-tainment.  I understand being upset because you feel you're innocent.  But the Clinton-conspiracy rebuke of the Senate Democrats in the opening statement mixed with the random tears was jarring for me.  Not in a good way.  I went from being undecided to questioning whether he could actually serve as an impartial judge.  He didn't appear to be a person who should weigh in on the extent of executive power.  The yelling at Senators asking them if they had drinking problems reminded me of friends/family members who were alcoholics in denial.

I'm going out on a limb here.  The FBI investigation will be much easier because (wait for it) HE HAS CALENDARS DATING BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL.  The FBI can locate the people's homes mentioned in the calendar.  They can get Judge's testimony under oath.  They can ask Brett if he's ever had therapy for drinking.  Those notes could contain admissions of being black out drunk.  They can talk to all the people listed by name in his calendars who were drinking buddies.  The FBI can talk to his frat brothers, the members of the Renate group, pull blueprints of the homes he visited, etc.  Kav can't just say he doesn't have calendars now that he's explained that he's kept them since he was 9 or 10.

Now, I don't know how this will play out.  It could be a cursory investigation, but there's a lot of info out there to dig into.  Plus, lying to the FBI can be harder to get away with than lying in front of the Senate when the Senate is likely to remain in Republican hands.  We'll see how this plays out.

calimom

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 755
  • Location: Northern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #864 on: September 28, 2018, 09:33:24 PM »
It's possible this decision rests on the well shod shoulders of Jeff Flake. The furrowed brow under his expensively coiffed waterfall of hair tells a story of a man conflicted. Sure, he's an Arizona Republican. But, he's no fan of rapey drunken bro culture. But a woman's right to choose! Should women be able to have rights!! Oh gay marriage, so challenging for Jeff. His Mormonism! His daughters! His Party! His moral disdain of Trump!  FBI investigation! Oh the conundrum of being Jeff.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #865 on: September 28, 2018, 09:39:55 PM »
It's not just one. It's two Republicans who have to go against Cocaine Mitch.  Like always, it's down to Murkowski and Collins actually showing they care about women.  Flake will get offered a Fox News job and get back in line by next Friday.

It's really too bad the Senate is a wholly undemocratic body.

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #866 on: September 28, 2018, 09:48:19 PM »
It's not just one. It's two Republicans who have to go against Cocaine Mitch.  Like always, it's down to Murkowski and Collins actually showing they care about women.  Flake will get offered a Fox News job and get back in line by next Friday.

It's really too bad the Senate is a wholly undemocratic body.

Donít forget Capito from West Virginia; she isnít up for re-election this year and I could see her going whichever way Manchin goes based on how his poll numbers are doing.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #867 on: September 28, 2018, 11:12:11 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.

So now an investigation is as bad as a hanging???

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5826
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #868 on: September 29, 2018, 03:25:08 AM »
I went from being undecided to questioning whether he could actually serve as an impartial judge. 

Bears pointing out that his nomination to in 2003 and confirmation to the lower court he currently serves in was held up for three years over concerns about impartiality.

During that three year period he worked for President Bush*.

I don't know enough about the decisions he has taken and judgements he has made on that court the last 12 years to comment on whether his perceived bias does shine through so I'll leave that alone.

I actually think it's a miracle of democracy that you guys have a formalised confirmation process, and that, on the face of it, however ugly, it seems to be working as intended in drawing skeletons out of the proverbial closet. Is the airing of very dirty laundry not the point of the whole process? Otherwise why have a confirmation process at all and just let the president say sign here and the job is yours?

*As an aside, never thought I'd say I almost look back with fondness on George Dubya. But then I remember Dick Cheney and Halliburton's role in Iraq and think... oh, the swamp was ever thus...

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #869 on: September 29, 2018, 04:34:15 AM »
Do you think Kav will cave and throw in the towel? I can imagine his speech. It would be about the hardship to his children and wife. How this 'witch hunt' has destroyed his life, his career, his fine reputation.

If the FBI digs and finds out things and people keep popping out of the woodwork to tell their experience with Kav, why would he think this is going to turn out good?

He showed his true colors while being questioned. Arrogant, belligerent, entitled. He apparently did not want the FBI to look into this and would NOT suggest it himself while Ford said she would be okay with it.

I like this new theory that Kav has a doppleganger and Ford is mistaken him for Kav. What next? Does Kav have an evil twin that his mother hid in the attic his entire life but escapes now and then?

What will happen if they prove he has lied under oath? Will he go to jail? Or maybe his evil twin will.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #870 on: September 29, 2018, 04:43:31 AM »

A conclusion involves guilt.  The FBI will not determine guilt.  They will provide evidence.  Period.
a verdict provides guilt, but if you want to split hairs and say that the FBI is only going to provide evidence whch will allow others to make conclusions, i don't think anyone is arguing that.  the hope is that, one way or the other, an investigation will yield conclusions on at least a few key discrepancies.

It should be noted that an investigation could help Kavanaugh as well, should the FBI corroborate statements about his activities in 1982 that he testified about under oath (with interviews of 'Smyth', 'Squi" and many others...)

Aelias

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #871 on: September 29, 2018, 06:01:44 AM »
I was thinking the other day about why wouldn't the Republicans just cut bait on Kavanaugh when they have a literal list of other very conservative judges with the standard legal and ideological qualifications (albeit without Kavanaugh's uniquely deferential view of executive power).  You want to look like you care about women?  Cut Kavanaugh loose and nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  She's a reliable vote and the evangelicals will be ecstatic. Done.

But then I thought about what kept coming up again and again in the Republican senators' comments, particularly in Lindsey Graham's meltdown during the testimony.  Timing.  They are furious that these allegations did not come out earlier and that the Democrats "held" them.

And I think the reason that matters is that it is now too late to even get through the document production portion of the confirmation progress, even for someone like Barrett with a relatively short document trail.  This suggests that had this info come out earlier, they very well might have pulled Kavanaugh, but now they feel like they can't because if the Dems take the Senate, the Republicans believe they'll Garland (and, yes, that should be a verb like "Bork") their nominees for the next two years.

It's interesting because most publically available polling suggests that taking a majority of the Senate is a real long shot for Democrats.  Fivethirtyeight has been giving a steady 30% chance of Democrats taking the Senate for at least a month. If they really believed those were the odds, I would think they'd take the risk.  The fact that they won't, and that they appear so genuinely incensed about how this played out, suggests to me that their internal polling has them spooked.

For whatever it's worth, I sincerely hope no one ever does to another nominee what Mitch McConnell did to Garland.  It's a terrible, unconstitutional precedent, and I hope it's a one-off.  Any Supreme Court nominee from any presidendent deserves a hearing and a vote.  From a practical standpoint, I'm not even sure that it's possible to for Democrats to Garland a nominee because they have a number of moderate Senators and they're not as lock-step as Republicans. But I find the fact that Republicans are terrified that Democrats will use their own tactic against them very telling.


partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #872 on: September 29, 2018, 06:22:22 AM »
Thought my strong preference was that this information came out earlier, and was investigated privately, hopefully before Kavanaugh was made a pick, I do feel it was the Republicans unwillingness to do a serious inquiry on this allegation including interviewing all relevant witnesses including Judge, and instead wanted to push forward, and hoped this woman would be too afraid to testify. Honestly the only thing what could happen the other day, was examining the credibility of the two people testifying. Again one person was credible. She answered all the questions. She said when she did not know the answer, rather than redirect or say something off topic. The other was not, avoiding the questions, being aggressive with the questioners, and making misleading statements.

The Republican I know didn't feel the next step was the FBI investigation. He feels the public inquiry did what it was supposed to do (separate the credible from the not-credible) and the next step should be, move to the next candidate.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 06:49:07 AM by partgypsy »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #873 on: September 29, 2018, 06:54:58 AM »
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)

I am replying to h2rís somewhat ridiculous assumption that it is not possible for a fifteen year-old girl to have one beer.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #874 on: September 29, 2018, 07:14:09 AM »
I was thinking the other day about why wouldn't the Republicans just cut bait on Kavanaugh when they have a literal list of other very conservative judges with the standard legal and ideological qualifications (albeit without Kavanaugh's uniquely deferential view of executive power).  You want to look like you care about women?  Cut Kavanaugh loose and nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  She's a reliable vote and the evangelicals will be ecstatic. Done.

But then I thought about what kept coming up again and again in the Republican senators' comments, particularly in Lindsey Graham's meltdown during the testimony.  Timing.  They are furious that these allegations did not come out earlier and that the Democrats "held" them.

And I think the reason that matters is that it is now too late to even get through the document production portion of the confirmation progress, even for someone like Barrett with a relatively short document trail.  This suggests that had this info come out earlier, they very well might have pulled Kavanaugh, but now they feel like they can't because if the Dems take the Senate, the Republicans believe they'll Garland (and, yes, that should be a verb like "Bork") their nominees for the next two years.

It's interesting because most publically available polling suggests that taking a majority of the Senate is a real long shot for Democrats.  Fivethirtyeight has been giving a steady 30% chance of Democrats taking the Senate for at least a month. If they really believed those were the odds, I would think they'd take the risk.  The fact that they won't, and that they appear so genuinely incensed about how this played out, suggests to me that their internal polling has them spooked.

For whatever it's worth, I sincerely hope no one ever does to another nominee what Mitch McConnell did to Garland.  It's a terrible, unconstitutional precedent, and I hope it's a one-off.  Any Supreme Court nominee from any presidendent deserves a hearing and a vote.  From a practical standpoint, I'm not even sure that it's possible to for Democrats to Garland a nominee because they have a number of moderate Senators and they're not as lock-step as Republicans. But I find the fact that Republicans are terrified that Democrats will use their own tactic against them very telling.

Unique User and bacchi  (replies  764 and 814 above) have mentioned the Gamble case in relation to the timeline.  That is a Supreme Court case which could make a ruling on the double jeopardy rule which would result in a Presidential pardon for federal crimes also blocking some or all of any State prosecution based on the same facts.   (Interestingly, Orin Hatch who just voted for Kavanaugh has intervened in the Gamble case to argue for that proposition.)  Getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court bench by 1st October could mean that he would be an extra vote in favour of extending the scope of Presidential pardons in that way.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gamble-v-united-states/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

(links helpfully supplied by bacchi)

I haven't been able to find any rules about how far a case needs to be advanced before a new Supreme Court justice can take part in the decision.  Logically I would have thought that a justice who wasn't present for an oral hearing would have difficulty in reaching a judgment on a case but haven't found a rule to that effect.  The Supreme Court opens for business next Monday and could start hearing cases immediately: it appears that it will hear the Gamble case in time to rule before Christmas, so pretty soon.

Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/28/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-ruling-853272


All of which is a rather long way of saying: the Republican's problem may not be that they don't think they can confirm a different justice before a new, potentially Democrat, Senate starts work on January 21 2019.  Their problem may be that they want a 5th reliably Conservative vote on the Supreme Court for decisions that the Court will be making this autumn, starting 1st October.  If so, it would make their panic over timing and desire not to delay even by a few days, more understandable.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 07:17:56 AM by former player »

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #875 on: September 29, 2018, 09:09:40 AM »
Quote
Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -

Serious question.  After Kavanaugh went full heel in his opening statement about a political hit from those upset about the Clintons and the shameful actions of the Senate Democrats, would he have to recuse himself from this case? He has basically lived at the White House for the last two weeks, and he's accused Senate Democrats of "searching and destroying."  I believe Blumenthal is the named plaintiff.  That doesn't seem like something that a newly minted Justice K could be impartial or unbiased about. 

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #876 on: September 29, 2018, 09:17:02 AM »
Quote
Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -

Serious question.  After Kavanaugh went full heel in his opening statement about a political hit from those upset about the Clintons and the shameful actions of the Senate Democrats, would he have to recuse himself from this case? He has basically lived at the White House for the last two weeks, and he's accused Senate Democrats of "searching and destroying."  I believe Blumenthal is the named plaintiff.  That doesn't seem like something that a newly minted Justice K could be impartial or unbiased about.

The Google says financial interests and close relatives. Nothing about screaming like a lunatic about liberal conspiracies.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #877 on: September 29, 2018, 09:21:10 AM »
Quote
Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -

Serious question.  After Kavanaugh went full heel in his opening statement about a political hit from those upset about the Clintons and the shameful actions of the Senate Democrats, would he have to recuse himself from this case? He has basically lived at the White House for the last two weeks, and he's accused Senate Democrats of "searching and destroying."  I believe Blumenthal is the named plaintiff.  That doesn't seem like something that a newly minted Justice K could be impartial or unbiased about.

Chief Justice doesn't want the Court to become a political circus. He'd probably make Kavanaugh stand down.

The real clue to the important of this case is that Orrin Hatch wrote an amicus brief for it. He, of course, wants the exception struck down.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/

If you read to the end, it'd probably mean another SC case to determine if Trump could pardon state crimes as well as federal crimes. We know which way Kavanuagh would vote on that one, too.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #878 on: September 29, 2018, 09:22:30 AM »
After FBI reports its findings, who receives the report? Will the Repubs reveal what is in the report or hide it?

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #879 on: September 29, 2018, 11:01:46 AM »
I believe the report goes to the White House and is then sent to the Senate.  The Washington Post has five pages of the 1982 calendar that can be viewed.  If I recall correctly, Dr. Ford said she spent most of the summer at a country club in Chevy Chase.  Judge K said that he couldn't have been at the party bc he didn't live in that area.  According to the calendar, it looks like he played "B-Ball at Chevy Chase (I can't make out the last word)" on June 27th.  I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but it looks like he made it out to Chevy Chase on the 27th.  There's no telling what's on his other calendars that would be relevant to the other claims. 

I don't know if Kavanaugh did it or not.  By all means he strikes me as a guy who had a drinking problem when he was young and who was fully steeped in "bro/frat" culture.  Many people were.  If he just admitted it and said that he's changed his life, etc., I'm not sure we would be in this position.  He seems more focused on not undermining his own choir boy self-image than he is on being honest.  I feel bad for him if the allegations aren't true, but the standard for sitting on the SC can't be whether he could be convicted as a criminal.  This isn't an issue of guilt or innocence.  You wouldn't hire (or keep) a CEO with the same baggage.  In a karmic sense, he had no problem with similar inquiries during his Starr days based on very similar allegations. 

I do want a conservative justice on the court, but I hope the Republicans cut bait.  Even if the FBI investigation is only allowed to last a week, there's no time limit to what the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. can turn up.  On some level I do not want to reward or incentivize political gamesmanship.  On the other hand, I'd rather pull Kavanaugh than be so politically entrenched that someone who seems to be overtly political and less than honest is given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. 

Lovelywings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #880 on: September 29, 2018, 03:37:37 PM »
I believe the report goes to the White House and is then sent to the Senate.  The Washington Post has five pages of the 1982 calendar that can be viewed.  If I recall correctly, Dr. Ford said she spent most of the summer at a country club in Chevy Chase.  Judge K said that he couldn't have been at the party bc he didn't live in that area.  According to the calendar, it looks like he played "B-Ball at Chevy Chase (I can't make out the last word)" on June 27th.  I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but it looks like he made it out to Chevy Chase on the 27th.  There's no telling what's on his other calendars that would be relevant to the other claims. 

I don't know if Kavanaugh did it or not.  By all means he strikes me as a guy who had a drinking problem when he was young and who was fully steeped in "bro/frat" culture.  Many people were.  If he just admitted it and said that he's changed his life, etc., I'm not sure we would be in this position.  He seems more focused on not undermining his own choir boy self-image than he is on being honest.  I feel bad for him if the allegations aren't true, but the standard for sitting on the SC can't be whether he could be convicted as a criminal.  This isn't an issue of guilt or innocence.  You wouldn't hire (or keep) a CEO with the same baggage.  In a karmic sense, he had no problem with similar inquiries during his Starr days based on very similar allegations. 

I do want a conservative justice on the court, but I hope the Republicans cut bait.  Even if the FBI investigation is only allowed to last a week, there's no time limit to what the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. can turn up.  On some level I do not want to reward or incentivize political gamesmanship.  On the other hand, I'd rather pull Kavanaugh than be so politically entrenched that someone who seems to be overtly political and less than honest is given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Pretty much this. I'm a liberal. But if Kavanaugh had acted in a restrained, forthright manner during his testimony and not lied about being a goody choirboy to Fox, we will not be here today. I would have felt bad for Ford, but would have had the objective view that it's hard to tell who is being truthful or who has a memory lapse.

As a judge, Kavanaugh has decades of experience with cases. His meltdown during his testimony showed him as the worst candidate in history. just the "I like beer. Do you like beer?" portion was sickening and betrayed an arrogance that does not belong on any court, much less the supreme one.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 03:39:15 PM by Lovelywings »

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #881 on: September 29, 2018, 04:50:43 PM »
You're missing the point that the right thinks the left is delaying so that the nomination confirmation takes place after the November elections.  This is ALL politically motivated on both sides.
Indeed. There two factors in play, A) having the final vote before/after the midterms and B) trying to use the confirmation hearing for political gain. Having the FBI investigate after Kavanaugh was out of committee seems to be a good move by the Republicans because it further limits the ability for the Democrats to push back the vote while simultaneously providing the Republicans cover for the mid-terms (assuming nothing else comes up).

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #882 on: September 29, 2018, 04:56:50 PM »
As a judge, Kavanaugh has decades of experience with cases. His meltdown during his testimony showed him as the worst candidate in history. just the "I like beer. Do you like beer?" portion was sickening and betrayed an arrogance that does not belong on any court, much less the supreme one.
I wouldn't call it a meltdown...it was a move purposefully pulled straight out of the Clarence Thomas play book.

Quote
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
--Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #883 on: September 29, 2018, 05:00:53 PM »

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #884 on: September 29, 2018, 05:54:52 PM »
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #885 on: September 29, 2018, 06:02:11 PM »
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #886 on: September 29, 2018, 06:41:58 PM »
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

Well played sir.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #887 on: September 29, 2018, 07:25:24 PM »
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

Well it won't be huge, since they apparently can only talk to a small list of people pre-approved by Trump.

What a sham

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #888 on: September 29, 2018, 08:31:52 PM »
As a judge, Kavanaugh has decades of experience with cases. His meltdown during his testimony showed him as the worst candidate in history. just the "I like beer. Do you like beer?" portion was sickening and betrayed an arrogance that does not belong on any court, much less the supreme one.
I wouldn't call it a meltdown...it was a move purposefully pulled straight out of the Clarence Thomas play book.

Quote
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
--Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing

My goodness. Just got around to watching and I would definitely call that a meltdown. Regardless of the words he used, that display was an embarrassment. Textbook behavior of someone being dishonest: couldn't stop squirming, getting defensive very quickly, answering questions that weren't even asked. After dodging a plain yes or no question about whether he favors an investigation 5 times, he just stops and stares. That's what little children do when they know they've been caught. At multiple points, I really thought he as going to cry.

The last time I heard someone lie so poorly:

https://www.popsugar.com/news/Old-Clip-Paul-Manafort-Unable-Answer-Russia-Question-43340296

And we all know how that turned out.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #889 on: September 29, 2018, 09:20:14 PM »
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #890 on: September 30, 2018, 05:20:37 AM »
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

Sadly it seems the GOP still doesn't sense the potential danger they are in.  Rather than use this investigation to be as certain as they can be that there are no more skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet, they seem more focused on limiting scope in order to not find anything out. 

It would be absolutely catastrophic for the party and for SCOTUS if more credibly allegations came out after confirmation and we learned it was because the FBI was prevented from interviewing certain individuals.  The GOP, it seems, is 'all-in' in their calculation that there's nothing unsavory left in Kavanaugh's past.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #891 on: September 30, 2018, 06:57:27 AM »
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

Sadly it seems the GOP still doesn't sense the potential danger they are in.  Rather than use this investigation to be as certain as they can be that there are no more skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet, they seem more focused on limiting scope in order to not find anything out. 

It would be absolutely catastrophic for the party and for SCOTUS if more credibly allegations came out after confirmation and we learned it was because the FBI was prevented from interviewing certain individuals.  The GOP, it seems, is 'all-in' in their calculation that there's nothing unsavory left in Kavanaugh's past.

The other conclusion is not that the Republicans are certain there is nothing else bad to come out about Kavanaugh but that they just don't care.   They probably think there will be no price to pay if other accusations come out because Kavanaugh will have been a done deal for two years and not even discussed by 2020.

Even if there are political consequences down the line then to them it is worth the risk for 40 years of partisan Supreme Court judgements: protecting corrupt Republican presidents, suppressing the vote and allowing big money donations.  After all, Clarence Thomas is still on the court after all these years, giving them the judgments they want, and Kavanaugh would be just the same. 

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #892 on: September 30, 2018, 07:29:17 AM »
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

But then Grandpa Ranty started tweeting that they did not impose limits on the FBI.  Since they have all claimed that his twitter is official, that might have effectively taken off any previous limits the White House did put on the FBI. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #893 on: September 30, 2018, 07:58:43 AM »
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

But then Grandpa Ranty started tweeting that they did not impose limits on the FBI.  Since they have all claimed that his twitter is official, that might have effectively taken off any previous limits the White House did put on the FBI.
Nah - the FBI are composed of the ultimate G-men. They need the appropriate form signed by the appropriate office and delivered to the correct department in order to do anything.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #894 on: September 30, 2018, 08:52:52 AM »
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

But then Grandpa Ranty started tweeting that they did not impose limits on the FBI.  Since they have all claimed that his twitter is official, that might have effectively taken off any previous limits the White House did put on the FBI.
Nah - the FBI are composed of the ultimate G-men. They need the appropriate form signed by the appropriate office and delivered to the correct department in order to do anything.

If Trump is trying to cut out Avenati's client from the FBI investigation then I wonder what the response will be.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #895 on: September 30, 2018, 09:08:11 AM »
I like how Lindsey Graham and others are saying Kavanaugh didn't do what Ford claims. Was Lindsey Graham attached at the hip with Kavanaugh back when they were teens? Ford took a lie detector test. Kavanaugh didn't. Ford acted with dignity unlike Kavanaugh who was totally off the rails with his tantrums. If Ford had acted half as bad as he did, they would have thrown her out and dismissed her statements as a ranting crazy woman. Funny, how these old geezers side with Kavanaugh and seems it doesn't matter if he is guilty of these allegations or not. Why are men supposed to be believed and woman not? Ford has nothing to gain from this at all and in fact everything to lose. Who would do that? No one!

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #896 on: September 30, 2018, 09:40:49 AM »
This morning's development is that a new allegation against Kavanaugh, that he raped a woman on a boat, was investigated and found... wait for it...  NOT credible!  (It looks like a case of mistaken identity.)  Republicans are outraged about what they're calling a "false accusation" and calling for criminal investigation into the accuser.  That didn't take long, senate republicans, where was this enthusiasm to investigate misdeeds 48 hours ago?

So the really interesting part to me is what this will mean for everyone else.  We've had several people here, and in Congress, say that an investigation cannot possibly exonerate Kavanaugh of these accusations, and yet here we apparently have a concrete example of exactly that happening.  Some people will look at this development and say "An FBI investigation CAN determine whether or not a sexual assault allegation is truthful or not" and others will look at it and say "Since this one accusations appears to be false, the other three must also be false, it's a liberal plot!"

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #897 on: September 30, 2018, 09:49:28 AM »
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

Well it won't be huge, since they apparently can only talk to a small list of people pre-approved by Trump.

What a sham

I think it will be of limited use.
1. If it was anything like my small town you could find several underage drinking parties each weekend. They all probably blended together after some point. (I never partook because I knew it could ruin my life.)
2. Peoples opinions could be colored by rumors and gossip.
3. Add to the hearsay part, now you have the sepia tones of nostalgia.
4. This has been on the news for the past week. Now anger and confusion will be a part of the interview.

I can understand Kavanaugh anger.

My friends came back from college with the attitude that "drinking is cool now." I went to a bonfire. I was the only sober person there minding my own business when a drunk woman came up and started rubbing her crotch on my knee. Instead of saying no, I opted to try and pull her in. (She is attractive and we had chemistry at the time.) She spun away and wagged her finger at me while walking away.

If in thirty years she says "He attacked me" and decades of work unravels, my allies abandon me, and the media portrays me as a monster while being unable to defend myself, I would be furious too.

I'm not defending Kavanaugh, I can relate to his position though. His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.

PDXTabs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #898 on: September 30, 2018, 09:51:35 AM »
His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.

Unless he knows that he is guilty AF. That's the only logical explanation for not demanding that the FBI clear his "good name."

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #899 on: September 30, 2018, 10:16:40 AM »
His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.

Unless he knows that he is guilty AF. That's the only logical explanation for not demanding that the FBI clear his "good name."

If I stood accused in the way Kavanaugh is, I would absolutely have demanded an investigation.  Not only would I have not refused to support it, I would have actively begged for it.  Please talk to all of the people who knew me, or the ones who were present!  Here is my exact recollection of events, including me being an awkward teenager!  I want to sit down in a room with my accuser and the FBI and try to figure out where this misunderstanding came from!

But Brett here can't do any of that, because he knows he had a drinking problem and can't remember parts of high school parties, and he knows lots of girls found him creepy and gropey, he knows he broke the law by drinking underage, he knows he had tens of thousands of dollars or gambling debt, and he knows that his previous nominations were held up for these reasons, and because he has a history of being biased on the bench.  He absolutely cannot have any of his past come to public attention.  Frankly, I'm shocked a man like that ever thought he could survive a national confirmation process at all.  It's probably just another example of white male privilege, thinking that his crimes don't matter and he's entitled to this promotion regardless of his history.

With all of that said, I can still think of another possible explanation for his refusal to support the investigation: he's a republican and he supports what the republican party wants.  Maybe this was never really about him personally, but about advancing the party's agenda and he won't stand against the party.  That means he could not openly call for an investigation when his republican backers were trying to suppress one.  He needs to support whatever narrative the republican party bosses want him to support, and so far that has been "I am a choir boy" despite his knowing full well that is not the case.  In this potential explanation, Brett is just another victim of politics in this situation, manipulated by republican congressional leaders into ruining his own life. 

Now I'm suddenly hoping he doesn't get confirmed and writes a scathing tell-all book about his experiences.  Dust jacket excerpt:  "'Donít get rattled by all of this," Mitch whispered in my ear as he squeezed my buttocks gently but firmly from behind, 'Weíre going to plow right through it.'"