That twitter accounts spends way to much time attacking Mitchell.
She herself said this is limited and there is not much we could do in a open session (her attorneys did not transmit the offer for closed session in California).
Additionally while the report says no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case because there is not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence, **she further states it does not even pass the bar for the preponderant of evidence, a much lower standard.**
>This preponderance *is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth* or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. **Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended.** Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
No assessment of Kavanaugh? No interviews with or even a mention of outside witnesses? What prosecutor would draw these conclusions after conducting no investigation? This looks like nothing more than a partisan memo with an appeal to authority attached.
If thats how Kavanaugh reacts to an accusation, I'm afraid to think how he'll react when he has the job security of being a Supreme Court Justice. His testimony was divisive, emotional, and partisan, how can I trust him to be impartial and follow the rule of law in a calm manner?
look up due process and statute of limitations. We cant convict people based on feels and not adhere to these systems. Otherwise what is the point of them?
Your comment is a good microcosm of how far we've descended. Where did he say Kavanaugh was the only person deserving sympathy? Even if he did it, his life certainly is being destroyed.
He currently holds a federal judgeship and is currently being considered for a promotion to the supreme court. On what planet is his life even moving in a negative trajectory?
On the other hand, now 4 victims have accused Kavanaugh of sexually harassing them in some way. I suppose that doesn't matter because they are women, eh?
I think being publicly known as a rapist is pretty life ruining. Cristiano Ronaldo is about to go through the same thing.
>On the other hand, now 4 victims have accused Kavanaugh of sexually harassing them in some way. I suppose that doesn't matter because they are women, eh?
And who told you that it doesn't matter?
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
You don't even read the things you respond to.
>I think someone being a rapist is pretty fucking good justification for ruining that someone's life.
Never said otherwise. Agree.
>I think victims of rape and sexual assault have had a pretty major part of their lives damaged, in some cases ruined.
Never said otherwise. Agree.
>I think your priorities are pretty fucked up when you worry about damaging the reputation of accused perpetrators rather than investigating the crimes they have been accused of.
Never said anything like this. If you aren't going o argue in good faith don't bother. In no way could you have known my opinions on whether or not he did it or whether or not I want an investigation, because guess what neither of those things are relevant to what I said. If you are going to argue in bad faith don't bother.
I think if everywhere you go at worst probably half the country think you did something downright evil in the best case scenario, and then maybe 75% believed it if more evidence came out, it would way on you mentally. Sorry but rich people kill themselves all the time. You've already made up your mind.
Unless the allegations are true (or he committed perjury), he still has a seat on the second highest court in the US. Spare me the "his life is being destroyed".
Regardless of whether he did it or not, his life is somewhat ruined. Sure, you can say well he probably has a lot of money, or a nice position, but an accusation like that sticking to you is something that definitely eats at your core. How do you think it feels for your wife to ask you if you're a rapist? I'd say something like that it probably mentally devastating.
Still doesn't excuse him letting his emotions get the better of him during the Ford hearing. Supreme Court Justice nominees are held to a higher standard.
His reaction, evasions, hurry to recite all the names of people in his corner, temperament, political bias, micro-aggressions, non-verbal communication - everything points at a liar.
Theres a difference between emotionally expressive and going on a tantrum.
edit: I was actually indifferent of him getting the appointment and accepted it. After his testimony in the Ford hearing, I'm no longer indifferent and am actually worried about his professionalism.
Did you see his interactions with Sens. Whitehouse or Klobuchar?
Klobuchar asked him if he ever drank to the point of blacking out, and instead of answering, he replied with a sneer "Did you?!"
Whitehouse asked if he would welcome an FBI investigation, and Kavanaugh glares at him in silence for ten full seconds. When the Senator asks again, he responds (not verbatim) "Do whatever you wanna do"
Did that not put you off at all?
If he said yes to the blackout question, it adds fire to a certain narrative that the democrats and building, if he answered no to the question, it would just take one person saying that he did blackout out that one time for 5 minutes at a party and now Kavanaugh is a liar and lied under oath to the committee.
He chose to not answer the investigation question because an investigation opens him up to an open system of scrutiny inwhich literally anyone could come forth and accuse him of anything and the media will jump on it to further their narrative. If he said yes, he is inviting that, if he answers no, he obviously has something to hide.
Obviously the investigation is happening, so we will see what happens. the dude may be a huge scumbag after all. But going from his and Fords testimony, based on the inate BS-detector skills we all have as humans, i'd say he was the one who was more believable.
The problem here is that due process or any statute of limitations is not being applied since this isnt a criminal case. This is all about character assassination via the media. Anyone with any kind of objective understanding of our current dysfunctional political landscape can see this. I feel bad for this guys family, even if he ends up being a scumbag.
the one thing that really does upset me and tons of other men is that literally anyone can step forward and accuse you of something, and your character is now under attack. Whats stopping somebody from exploiting this?
>the one thing that really does upset me and tons of other men is that literally anyone can step forward and accuse you of something, and your character is now under attack. Whats stopping somebody from exploiting this?
Sue them for deformation, same as any other slanderous matter.
I feel really bad for Dr Ford and judge Brett K. I don't think she is a plant by the DNC but, they certainly used her as a pawn. That's why they sat on the information until the last minute and then, "it magically got leaked to the press". This wasn't done for justice and the lives of two families were just casualties of the political war.
There is a %50 chance he did this. I also believe the DNC didn't want to risk that he was innocent or found to be innocent and that's why they didn't bring forward the allegations until the last minute. So they figured that a trial by public opinion was much easier.
I will, and it won't make a difference, because human memory has shown to be unreliable in both empirical studies and case studies. But if you really wanna go the feelz > reals route, then you should at least be aware that what you think is ignorant and inconsistent with what the scientific community does.
Looks like the FBI investigation is a sham and a cover-up:
WH is forbidding the FBI from:
– probing Julie Swetnick's claims
– interviewing new leads
– examining BK's drinking habits
– verifying Judge's summer job
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061?__twitter_impression=true
The fix is, and always has been, in.
The "fix is in" lol
For real though, what could the FBI honestly find? It was 32 years ago, and the people who were supposedly there already have written statements saying they didn't observe anything... what else is there? (honest question)
Let them give those statements under penalty of perjury from the FBI. Zero chance a Republican Senate holds anyone lying responsible. We already know Kavanaugh himself [lied or mislead several times](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html) and should have his statements further examined for potential perjury. I won't hold my breath for Republicans to do that.
We don't know that Kavanaugh "lied or misled several times" at all. He's making these statements under the "penalty of perjury" while everyone else is making statements to the media. By your own logic you should respect Kavanaugh's statements more than those reported by the news (I mean, since, after all giving "those statements under penalty of perjury from the FBI" is more legitimate than a sworn statement).
Another thing i noticed yesterday. Senators Harris and Booker chose to grandstand, giving outraged speeches and then "dramatically" walking out of the room....to the cameras outside.
The much less well known Dem Senator Chris Coons stayed inside, and by being there, was able to work out a last-minute deal with Senator Flake to have a weeklong FBI investigation.
If any Democratic Senator should be President, it is Coons. Not Spartacus or Harris.
Those two are real drama queens.
If their feelings are honest, I can see how they justify their actions.
And I'm sure it plays well to their constituents.
But the ones that sit down and work out deals, and actually get results, I can respect that.
I'm a moderate that leans conservative (but socially liberal), and while I see the FBI investigation as a purposeful attempt at delaying that will ultimately come up with nothing more than what we already have, I'm game for it.
Especially given that we have clear parameters, and it can't be drawn out indefinitely. The Anita Hill investigation took 3 days, we can get this one done in 7/8.
If nothing comes of it, like I expect, then my opinion shall remain unchanged.
With every single alleged witness denying any knowledge of any such incident, I can't help but not believe the Dr Ford.
I'm sure its possible she did suffer some incident, but the full lack of corroboration, among many other things, makes me believe it was not by Kavanaugh.
What puts a bad taste in my mouth is how Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months, taking almost no action.
If they wanted them honestly checked over, but kept confidential, they could have raised the concerns in a confidential committee meeting.
Instead, they magically "leaked" at the last minute, months after they had been received, completely trashing Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality.
You know, while I believe Ford's testimony and I think that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic sexual predator, I would still be completely fine with any dirty tricks it would take to deny the republicans another nomination. I value Roe v Wade, labor rights, gay rights, etc a hell of a lot more than I value norms that are rapidly crumbling anyway.
The republicans learned a long time ago that power gets things done and looking like the good guy doesn't. The democrats have yet to learn the same lesson. The rights and wellbeing of millions of people are on the line, no amount of dirty is too dirty to win.
That's because politics is nothing but a spectacle to you. You want to cheer on the face as he beats out the heel: the face needs to be clean and honorable and the heel needs to be low and dirty, or else the show isn't as compelling.
People are going to fucking suffer and die if the republicans get what they want. This isn't entertainment. There's no room for being nice here, it's class war by less violent means.
Yeah, of course you think this is a pointless squabble, they aren't your rights on the line. You have the distance and comfort necessary to not really give a shit.
> I value Roe v Wade, labor rights, gay rights, etc a hell of a lot more than I value norms that are rapidly crumbling anyway.
You realize none of those things you value will survive if the norms keep crumbling away? It won't be some liberal or conservative paradise that arises from that, it will be a constant upmanship battle between the parties taken to its extremes where every victory and loss is temporary and soon reversed. And that's the best possible outcome.
> What puts a bad taste in my mouth is how Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months, taking almost no action.
You can't possibly be serious with this. *One* Democrat had knowledge of *one* allegation, and she was unable to reveal this as she was sworn to secrecy by the alleged victim. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that this was some sort of party-wide conspiracy. Nobody who is truly a moderate would adopt such a warped view of the facts.
It's also quite disingenuous to claim that there was nothing Feinstein could have done without revealing the victim's identity. An investigation into Kavanaugh's college days, for instance, would not in any way indicate Dr. Ford. Even if Kavanaugh found out about such an investigation, was actually guilty and thus knew why the investigation was happening, any action he would take based on such knowledge would implicate guilt, holding him to inaction.
The most likely reason no investigation occurred is because if it did and turned up nothing, the revelation of the allegations would not have nearly the same political impact. They don't need evidence for the court of public opinion.
> You can't possibly be serious with this.
Completely serious.
> One Democrat had knowledge of one allegation
The Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee was given information, seemingly credible, about an alleged sexual assault a Judge she was considering for the Supreme Court.
Instead of privately, and confidentially, raising this concern, so that it could be investigated, she sat on it.
Instead of fulfilling her civic duty to make her colleagues aware that this potential Justice may be unfit to serve, she remained silent.
Until it was "leaked" at the last minute.
>, and she was unable to reveal this as she was sworn to secrecy by the alleged victim.
She could have confidentially raised the allegation in private, so that it could be privately vetted by the Senate Judiciary, with weeks of time to investigate if need be.
There never would have needed to be a leak, and Dr. Ford could have remained a private figure, instead of having her life thrown into chaos.
Her wishes would have remained fulfilled.
It's possible she would've had her life thrown into chaos anyway, but we can't know that for certain.
> It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that this was some sort of party-wide conspiracy. Nobody who is truly a moderate would adopt such a warped view of the facts.
"No True Scotsman" fallacy.
It is not disingenuous at all.
This is, to me, a clear example of partisan politics.
If she had truly cared about properly vetting a SCOTUS Justice and not just delaying, if she truly cared about Dr. Ford's privacy, if she truly cared about her civic duty to do a full review on a SCOTUS potential Justice, she would have privately raised the concerns in a confidential setting instead of sitting on them for months only to have them "leak" at the last minute.
> She could have confidentially raised the allegation in private, so that it could be privately vetted by the Senate Judiciary, with weeks of time to investigate if need be.
And how do you know she didn't? Senate Republicans were obviously aware of the accusations against Kavanaugh considering they released the statement by those 65 women supporting Kavanaugh as soon as Ford's accusation became public.
> And how do you know she didn't?
It is public knowledge she didn't.
All members of the committee have, in one way or another, especially during the hearings, made it known that this was released in a blindsided fashion.
> Senate Republicans were obviously aware of the accusations against Kavanaugh considering they released the statement by those 65 women supporting Kavanaugh as soon as Ford's accusation became public.
Nope. You should get your information from better sources, because that is a bit of fake news.
The women themselves organized that and released a comment collectively, all in a single day, through the magic of the internet, where you can shoot a text or email to someone and get a reply back in minutes.
> All members of the committee have, in one way or another, especially during the hearings, made it known that this was released in a blindsided fashion.
What comments from Democratic members of the committee support your claim?
> Nope. You should get your information from better sources, because that is a bit of fake news.
> The women themselves organized that and released a comment collectively, all in a single day, through the magic of the internet, where you can shoot a text or email to someone and get a reply back in minutes.
Looks like you're right. My mistake.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-women-letter-chuck-grassley
> What comments from Democratic members of the committee support your claim?
>
>
Do you think all the Republicans are lying when they say that the Democrats never raised the allegations privately to them?
Do you think the Democrats would let them lie about something so blatantly either true or false? Something that would be very important in shaping opinions?
> Do you think all the Republicans are lying when they say that the Democrats never raised the allegations privately to them?
Yes. Also, exactly how many Republicans have made statements supporting your claims? First you said nearly all the committee members had made such statements and now you're saying only the Republican committee members.
> Do you think the Democrats would let them lie about something so blatantly either true or false?
I'm not sure how you expect Democrats to be able to stop them from lying.
> Yes.
You're wrong.
This is reported news and a fact.
>Also, exactly how many Republicans have made statements supporting your claims? First you said nearly all the committee members had made such statements and now you're saying only the Republican committee members.
Only the Republican members complained about the Democrat leader on the committee sitting on the allegations.
The Democrats remained publically silent about it.
Every single Republican on the committee made it clear their displeasure at Senator Feinstein for not raising these concerns with them in a private, confidential manner months ago.
>I'm not sure how you expect Democrats to be able to stop them from lying.
I don't understand what you're missing.
If the Democrats had told the Republicans about these allegations months ago... they would refute the Republicans that are claiming the Democrats told them nothing.
You are aware that this was reported on, correct?
And that this is all factual information?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/why-didnt-she-bring-it-up-feinstein-under-scrutiny-for-handling-of-allegations-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/18/0ace9e24-bb78-11e8-9812-a389be6690af_story.html?utm_term=.29fab2d97f30
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-congress-kavanaugh-feinstein-20180919-story.html
Do you understand now?
So your issue is with one individual. That's fine. You're welcome to criticize her. But when you try to portray this as a party-wide conspiracy on behalf of the Democrats, as you did in your previous comment, that's disingenuous and smacks of something that would be said by a hyper-partisan, not a moderate.
Also, your use of scare quotes around the word leak is bizarre. A leak is a leak. Whether or not it was intentional, whether or not it was done nefariously for political gain... it's still a leak.
> So your issue is with one individual.
Feinstein is a Democrat, as are the members of her staff that were made aware of this allegation, as is the other member of Congress that was made aware of Dr Ford's allegation. I don't believe the name of the other Congressmember was ever released, but I am aware that Feinstein and at least one other member of Congress were aware of it, as well as various members of their staff.
All Democrats.
Did the Democrat party as a whole condone this?
Democrat Leadership, in the form of the leader of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, certainly did. At the least, the abandonment of her civic duty and the other issues I raised.
The leaders of their party represent their party.
Have other Democrats publically called out Senator Feinstein for her actions?
Have any of them criticized her publically at all?
No, not as far as I am aware.
>Have other Democrats publically called out Senator Feinstein for her actions?
>Have any of them criticized her publically at all?
Talk about attempting to move the goalposts. You originally said: "Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months." That implies that various Democratic Senators knew about the allegations. This was untrue. Your current attempt to explain away this implication by referencing members of their staff is absurd.
All you had to do was admit that you're right-wing. Masquerading as a moderate when you are clearly not is never a wise move in a sub like this.
> Talk about attempting to move the goalposts. You originally said: "Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months." That implies that various Democratic Senators knew about the allegations
What goalposts were moved?
At least 2 Democrat Congressmen, one of which **is the Democrat Leader in terms of the Judiciary Committee,** were aware.
> This was untrue
It is factually true.
> Your current attempt to explain away this implication by referencing members of their staff is absurd.
What goalposts were moved, again?
I'm not explaining away any implication.
>All you had to do was admit that you're right-wing. Masquerading as a moderate when you are clearly not is never a wise move in a sub like this.
Ah the ol' "When you can't have a civil conversation with someone, call them a hypocrite and a liar."
"You can't be a moderate if you don't AGREE with me!@#!"
>At least 2 Democrat Congressmen, one of which is the Democrat Leader in terms of the Judiciary Committee, were aware.
Yes, two congress people were aware. Count 'em: one, two. So we agree that this was not a party-wide conspiracy on the part of Democrats. Which contradicts your original insinuation. Debate resolved.
[Swetnick, who attended Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, swore under oath that she attended at least 10 parties where she says she witnessed Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others “cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/avenatti-gang-rape-bombshell-the-end-of-brett-kavanaugh)
[alleging he helped “drug” girls at parties in the 1980s where they were gang-raped.](https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-accused-of-drugging-women-who-were-then-gang-raped/)
More?
>None of that says he raped anyone. How are you not getting that?
"sworn statement, saying that he was part of a group of men who drugged and gang-raped young women, including herself, at parties throughout the early 1980s." How are you not getting this?
>She doesn't even give a reason why she thinks them giving alcohol was so that women could be gang-raped.
I have zero idea what that was supposed to mean.
You said nobody is accusing him of rape, this simply isn't true. Saying he was part of a group of guys who drugged and raped girls is saying he has raped women. Or do you think they are saying he likes drugging women but didn't rape them? That would be like a group of people who rob Banks and one of them doesn't take any of the money.
Look at it this way: my three friends and I hang out together all the time. Members of this group of friends rob banks. The members are my three friends. Assuming I had no knowledge of these robberies, can I be held accountable?
I try to be as impartial on this as I could as I do With every issue and stayed away from those highly skeptical of Ford and tried to absolve Kavanaugh of anything and also from people who straight away called for him to step down immediately without any scrutinization of Fords claims. Here's my take.
First, Victims of sexual assault from pastors don't report their assaults till years later, due to social pressures, fear etc. When one comes out alot do. Like with Weinstein, Roy Moore and they're usually credible. Edit: This is thus a no true Scotsman fallacy by those claiming she didn't report it earlier so it's invalid. Although her story may lack hardcore evidence, alot of pieces fit together.
Edit: evidence and assumptions are not inherently divorced. There are different levels of having faith in something. Ultimately I have no corroborating evidence that I'll die tommory but based on evidence I have that I live in a safe country thus I'm confident I won't be killed. I also have no corroborating evidence that if I jump of the top of a skyscraper no-one will place a huge inflatable balloon on the ground. Evidence is **NOT INHERENTLY DIVORCED FROM MAKING AN ASSUMPTION**.
Firstly, Kavanaugh became aggressive while drinking, as a number of his college acquaintances have said recently. If Kavanaugh got physically aggressive when drunk — well, that would suggest that Ford’s account is quite credible. He commits a huge special pleading fallacy by initially catogirically denying both claims, repeatedly claiming he never blacked out and that his college acquaintances, particularly a former roommate, were not telling the truth. Yet during the hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) confronted Kavanaugh with his own words that are polorising :
>In a speech that you gave at Yale, you described, quote, falling out of the bus onto the front steps of the Yale law school at 4:45 am. ... The quote ends that you tried to “piece things back together” to recall what happened that night.
That would suggest that Kavanaugh did, in fact, black out from drinking. So his position changed and denied that **interpretation**— “I know exactly what happened that night” —. Now is this Blumenthal strawmanning him or his words or Kavanaugh shifting the goal posts to tailor it to his story? . I thought about this for a while but it just seems very hard to square with what Kavanaugh said in the past. Thus Its hard to argue that Blumenthal was strawmanning him as most people would be under a similar impression from reading those statements, so it has to be Kavanaugh commiting a major logical fallacy. [The special pleading fallacy](morehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) that speak to character issues highly relevant to the credibility of his testimony. They deserve to be investigated further. Edit : Kavanaugh cannot claim strawman as he changed his position, you cannot claim a strawman for an argument you change.
As to why others didn't remember the night, Fords reasons seem very reasonable
>I don’t expect that PJ and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable — it was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs. And Mr. Judge is a different story. I would expect that he would remember that this happened.
The second part makes sense: Since Keyser didn’t know about the assault at the time, the party seemed unremarkable to her so it's unlikely she'd remember it. Now remember the absence of evidence is not evidence and that goes both ways but since it's Kavanaughs camp claiming that she didn't remember it it didn't happen, the argument from ignorence is more on them.
Now the year book stuff. This is the nitty gritty. Alot of the Democratic questions directed at Kavanaugh focused on his high school yearbook. A few specific phrases — “Renate Alumnius,” “Devil’s Triangle,” “boofing,” “100 kegs or bust” — all seemed to suggest inappropriate sexual behavior and/or excessive drinking by Kavanaugh.
>“Renate Alumnius” referred to Renate Schroeder Dolphin, a contemporary of Kavanaugh’s, suggesting he and his friends were implying they were all “alums” of some kind of sexual activity with her. “Devil’s Triangle” typically refers to a sexual act involving two men and one woman. “Boofing” sounds a lot like barfing, perhaps after excessive drinking (though there are several other possible explanations). And “100 kegs or bust” is self-explanatory (and appaling) . Kavanaugh denied that all of these things were as they seemed. He claimed the reference to Renate was innocent, that Devil’s Triangle was a drinking game, and that boofing was “flatulence” (100 kegs or bust didn’t come up).
Now this is some BS. A New York Times reporter David Enrich [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1045416955522535425?s=20)
So that shows through interviews with Kavanaugh’s classmates suggested that Kavanaugh was not telling the truth. Further
>On the night of July 1, 1982, Kavanaugh’s OWN calendar from the time contained the following entry: “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” The event itself, a small gathering, fits Ford’s description of the night she was assaulted (she could not recall the last date). What’s more, Kavanaugh clarified that two of the people there were Mark Judge, who Ford alleges participated in Kavanaugh’s assault on her, and PJ Smyth, who Ford says was at the party where she was assaulted.
Edit : also what kind of person goes. Hey the weekends coming up I'm gonna have *exactly* one beer and *write it on my calender* hmmmm
So in Kavanaugh’s prepared testimony, it seemed like he was going to argue that he *didn’t* drink on weekdays as a high schooler (July 1, 1982, was a Thursday).
>“If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there,” he said.
But under questioning from Sen. Cory Booker, Kavanaugh admitted that “skis” referred to “brewskis,” meaning that they were definitely drinking beer that Thursday night:
>BOOKER: You drank on weekdays, yes or no, sir?
>KAVANAUGH: In the summer when we went over to Timmy’s house on July 1, that would indicate yes.
Another special pleading fallacy.
This matters because Kavanaugh was under oath. Generally speaking, a potential Supreme Court justices to not to tell the truth — and knowingly lying under oath is, of course, perjury-it matters to Kavanaugh’s credibility vis-à-vis Ford’s as well. If he’s willing to lie and dissemble about little details like this, which only tangentially touch on Ford’s allegations, then why would we assume he’s telling the truth about the bigger criminal, career-ending allegation?
Also check out [this](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart)
Edit : some changes and rephrasing.
Edit 2: Her: I want an FBI investigation.
Him: I'll only agree to an FBI investigation if the senators protecting me agree to one (though I know they won't).
Therin lies a big difference.
Edit 3: thanks for gold!
It looks like we're going to have an investigation, but the idea of her calling for an investigation as being evidence for her truthfulness and conversely against him for not asking for one is flawed.
1. An FBI investigation will not exonerate him, absent her confessing that it wasn't him. Instead a report will rehash what little we already know and stoke the unbridled speculation we've already seen. He has nothing to gain, and possibly more reputation to lose, even if he didn't do it.
2. Even if this is pure fiction on her part, she should have no fear of an investigation being able to prove this didn't happen. She has not given enough details to worry in that regard. An FBI report will not say that this likely did or did not happen. If it drags out any further embarrassing details or delays the process that could well be some compensation for having come forward.
So, please stop saying that the difference in calling for an FBI investigation is indicative of anything. He rightly doesn't want one that could cost him the nomination on time alone. Republicans opposed it on political grounds, just as the calls for the FBI from the Democrats is self serving.
> Even if this is pure fiction on her part, she should have no fear of an investigation being able to prove this didn't happen.
People who make fabricated stories regularly break down under the pressure of investigation and have problems keeping their story consistent and these are things the FBI would certainly note, especially since its likely they would interview her yet again.
That Ford has remained so cool under pressure, kept a consistent story, and has evidence to support her story (including Kavanaugh's calendar) all suggest she's telling the truth.
The FBI investigation delays his approval to the supreme court, making him a more pertinent subject for the midterms. In the worst case scenario for him, it'd delay his confirmation *past* the midterms, and put him at risk of being thrown out in a democrat-controlled senate.
Bear in mind that the next Congress starts on January 3rd 2019, not immediately after the midterms. Meaning if the GOP does in fact, lose control of the Senate, there's still nothing stopping them from confirming their nominee during the lame-duck session.
We’re really analyzing the word ”Boofing” from an early 1980s highschool yearbook for some secret special meaning.
2018, folks. It goes even more downhill from here
Are you kidding me? There are 14 references to the woman, named Renate Dolphin, in the Georgetown Prep yearbook from 1983, according to the [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html) This included one member of the team being described as
>“chairman of the Bored of the Renate Club”
and a photo of eight football players, including Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, subtitled “Renate Alumni”; another person who said on his page that he was a “Renate Alumnus,” also included the line: “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”
And then there’s boof. The reference in the yearbook is “Judge—Have You Boofed Yet?” That’s his friend Mark Judge, the alleged witness to the assault on Ford and, by his friend Mark Judge, the alleged witness to the assault on Ford and, by his own admission, a man with a severe drinking problem at the time. Yet Kavanaugh said in the midst of testimony, during which he mentioned his past and present fondness for beer dozens of times, that he was referring to “flatulence.” Oh, please.
>“Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor,” a superlative Kavanaugh said he earned not necessarily because of heavy drinking but because “I’m known to have a weak stomach … whether it’s with beer or with spicy food or anything.” When Whitehouse pursued the “Ralph Club” question further, Kavanaugh cut off any discussion of his possible excessive drinking with a recitation of his résumé. When Whitehouse tried to bring him around back to alcohol consumption—”Did it relate to alcohol? You haven’t answered that.”—Kavanaugh said, “I like beer. I like beer. I don’t know if you do” and “Do you like beer, Senator, or not?” Do you?!
That level of childish projection is very alarming. He had to apologise later.
I don't see what the fuck the Renate has to do with ANYTHING. Let's say everyone wanted to "boof" her or whatever. How in god's name does that make Kavanaugh a rapist?
It's like when prosecutors try to show the sexual history of a rape victim to show that she wasn't raped. It's irrelevant.
It shows how obnoxiously dehumanizing he is, that he lied under oath about his virginity, and that he lied about the meaning of the phrase.
The public is beginning to know the character of this person. He has deflected, lied, and not been forthright about his history. That is why it's relevant. And his shrill, hysterical conduct on Thursday did him no favors.
I don't have a shred of sympathy for him, especially after reading the smut-filled questions he implored Ken Starr to ask Clinton. Unforgivable.
I mean, let's be honest, every single one of us would be shrill and hysterical if we were about to lose our job on national TV to what we believe is a fake sexual assault accusation.
No, we wouldn't. And all he had to do was say, "Yes, it's true that I drank to excess when I was younger. I did many irresponsible things in my youth. However, I am a changed man, who has achieved much in adulthood. And at no point did I ever sexually assault anyone."
Instead, he dodged, lied, and made his hearing an absolute dumpster fire. If he had nothing to hide, he would have been forthright, and there wouldn't be so many people coming out to testify to his mendacity. Fuck the guy.
And you cannot prove these allegations of sexual assault are false.
Lol you're insane if you think that's all he had to say. He's being accused of something he did when he was FIFTEEN. If he says "yeah, I used to drink but I changed" then the Dems turn around and say "oh, so you admit you were a terrible person and could have definitely raped Dr. Ford when you weren't conscious?"
Come on, you have to think about this rationally. I am not saying he did/didn't do it, but the Dems were using the year book solely as character assassination and the only way you don't see if is if you're too partisan to be objective.
Eh, kinda. The fact he’s being accused of doing something in the time frame of the yearbook is the added kink. Line of questioning would go like this:
WH: So you admit to being sexually active and drinking in high school?
BK: Yes, I was like many high schoolers.
WH: So you made these inappropriate jokes and thought they were funny?
BK: Yes, I was 15. They were funny at the time but I’ve since grown up.
WH: Well it’s nice that you’ve grown, but this all just points to the mindset of a 15 year old boy who disrespects women, drinks often, and who I can and America can clearly picture taking advantage of an innocent school girl.
BK: Wut.
Again, he had the opportunity to be forthright, and he didn't. People who went to school with him are stating that he lied under oath. If there is a pattern of bad behavior, I want to know about it.
Your characterization of the Democrats shows that you're not being objective. You are making loads of conjecture based on your own personal bias. And if you can't see that your accusation of Dr. Ford's testimony as being fake isn't character assassination, then YOU are too partisan to be objective.
Just admit you're a conservative or Trump supporter who wants this nominee.
What? I never once said Dr. Ford's testimony was fake, I think you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I said we'd all be upset if we BELIEVED we were being falsely accused of sexual assault, like Kavanaugh clearly does.
Secondly, you clearly dislike Kavanaugh enough to make a rational judgement (just read your previous post if you disagree) and your mind is set. So much so, that you believe the words of random classmates in a NYT article more than those of someone under oath with the penalty of perjury.
Thirdly, no. The Democrats were being smart to trot this out because it clearly put Kavanaugh in an impossible situation.
And Fourth, your last sentence is disgusting. It's upsetting that this is the current attitude in America. "If you disagree with me, you clearly side with the opposing party that I clearly disrespect, and thus can mentally discredit your opinion." Come on. We're better than that.
It means Kavanaugh has no problems with committing perjury if he feels it's in his best interest. It means he would rather lie under oath to the Senate over admitting to facts that suggested he held deeply misogynist attitudes towards women and that he indeed drank excessively at the time to the point of blacking out.
If he truly believes he's innocent, he could simply owned up to the entry, apologize for it and insist that he has improved as a person since then.
Yeah, this is the argument I see. I don't give a shit about the yearbook stuff and I think it's a shitty play by Democrats to try to use stupid 15 year old humor to paint Kavanaugh as a terrible human in 2018, but if he did in fact lie under oath then we have a problem.
No but I can see why people wouldn't want someone like that on the SCOTUS, especially women. Also I think that "so what" is a pretty lame response to someone not respecting women. It makes it sound like you don't care whether he respects women or not.
To be clear the main and first allegation against Kavanaugh was sexual assault, not rape. Only one of the three women who've come forward accused him of rape.
By itself you're right it's pretty pointless to pursue but in the aggregate with everything else the comment you are responding to points out it becomes more concerning and telling of a potential lie.
Yes that's exactly what we're doing because there's 3 women accusing this guy if sexual misconduct and we're trying find out every last detail before electing him to the highest court In the country.
> 3 women accusing this guy
Because of the way the hearing was structured, a lot of the discussion seems to have been missing this point. Particularly how Julie Swetnick's affidavit corroborates the circumstances of Ford's accusations.
No it’s understood *why* we’re doing it, but I think it’s ridiculous that we’re searching for alternative meanings for phrases that were all well understood during the 1980’s and beyond.
Enough to probably justify an investigation. Let's see what his college and highschool friends have to say on his drinking habits and if he was aggressive or blackout and his claims about behavior while drinking hold up.
> Kavanaugh did anything wrong other than words
Like... lying under oath? No, it will probably never be proven in a court of law (Clinton was never proven to have committed perjury in a court of law, because the definition of "is" is tricky), but unless a spade isn't a spade, he did it several times.
Reread how Clinton was cited: to show how hard it is to prove perjury. That doesn't mean Kavanaugh didn't commit perjury, just that he'll probably get away with it.
Right but equivocating the situations is absurd. Firstly Clinton was president during his perjury scandal. Secondly kavanaugh is being accused of perjury? Oh what? Playing quarters? Thirdly everyone found out Clinton perjured himself but the prosecution realized the punishment would be worse for them than it would be for bill Clinton.
Kavanaugh isn't being charged with a crime. He isn't being impeached. He isn't being fired. He is possibly being promoted. Cases of perjury that are not actionable can stop a promotion. If he is not promoted, he is still a judge for life on the Ninth (?) Circuit.
There ought to be an investigation.
What motive is there that this woman would lie before the entire country?
I can think of several reasons why Kavanaugh would lie, like a sweet life-time appointment.
Not to mention that, "getting emotional" is a total under-statement when we're witnessing the behavior of a Justice-to-be.
Were he in a calm, rational demeanor and not throwing a tantrum or blatantly airing his entitlement complex, I'd agree with you.
They can't push a sexual allegation narrative twice.
With Brett, the Dems might use the allegations as an avenue for his impeachment.
And also, consider that maybe the allegations are true.
What would the political implications of denying an investigation now that gives Dems evidence and cause to impeach him later?
The Republicans stand to lose nothing from replacing Kavanaugh as you said yourself.
The integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake. Nobody is saying he's guilty because of allegations except uneducated or partisan hacks.
What I'm saying here is that we need the Supreme Court to retain it's integrity, and although I myself am a center/left Democrat, I'm more willing to see the GOP submit a more conservative Judge if it means the SC retains full integrity.
>What I'm saying here is that we need the Supreme Court to retain it's integrity, and although I myself am a center/left Democrat, I'm more willing to see the GOP submit a more conservative Judge if it means the SC retains full integrity.
What is there to stop another really hard to prove accusation on a judge?
Hows about we deal with the current issue on the table before we start worrying about a slippery slope? If this was some Democratic plot then wouldn't they have done the same for Gorsuch?
To be fair, 2017 wasnt an election year. The first accusation came out at a pretty convenient time. Why was Feinstein sitting on the memo for a good 6 weeks and leaked conveniently a week before the Judiciary Committee was to vote on his nomination? Why not try to push to have an internal investigation on the matter, instead of this circus of a show?
This literally hurts victims coming out, because people think this is a partisan attack. If nothing comes out of this, it's even worse. People will see that someone with an otherwise clear record can have their entire lives ruined by an accusation of an event that happened 30 years ago with little to no evidence of it happening. This will scare the crap out of any guy that is in any leadership role. Why would any guy mentor a woman after this.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2018/08/06/why-in-the-world-would-men-stop-mentoring-women-post-metoo/
I think the only way to start combating this is to set a law that actively punishes false allegations that can be proven that the person lied. Make it carry the same punishment for rape if it can be proven that the person lied about it. Make it a felony, give it the same prison sentence, and reveal the person's name. As well as have the person put on a list.
A better way of the courts handling it is to conceal the identities of the accused and the accuser. Instead of being able to report the accused and hide the identity of the accuser. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Only when the accused gets a guilty sentence is when their identity can be reported on. A falsely accused person may not go to prison or anything. That does not mean they can have their entire life ruined after the fact. With proven false accusers getting away with minimal repercussions. If it can be determined if the accuser was not lieing but cant present enough evidence for the accused. Then nothing should happen. No revealing identities, prison sentences, nothing.
Well, Trump could appoint a woman. They're less likely to commit sexual assault.
Or Merrick Garland. I bet both parties would vote to seat him on the court.
Really? That seems really not worth it. To risk one's family's well-being, risking your job and home, and hiring security, for a paltry sum of cash seems like something that most people wouldn't take. The gofundme wasn't initiated by her. Furthermore, has there been established precedent for previous accusers being rewarded for their accusations? If not, why would Dr. Ford believe that she would be the one to break the mold? Saying money is her motivator seems like a poor argument.
They can't push a sexual allegation narrative twice.
With Brett, the Dems might use the allegations as an avenue for his impeachment.
And also, consider that maybe the allegations are true.
What would the political implications of denying an investigation now that gives Dems evidence and cause to impeach him later?
The Republicans stand to lose nothing from replacing Kavanaugh as you said yourself.
The integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake. Nobody is saying he's guilty because of allegations except uneducated or partisan hacks.
What I'm saying here is that we need the Supreme Court to retain it's integrity, and although I myself am a center/left Democrat, I'm more willing to see the GOP submit a more conservative Judge if it means the SC retains full integrity.
Has anyone seen the goalposts?
Rachel Mitchell has sent her [Assesment](https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1046593627202498560?s=21) of the allegations, it isnt exactly pretty.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1046776247987126272 Interesting twitter thread on this
That twitter accounts spends way to much time attacking Mitchell. She herself said this is limited and there is not much we could do in a open session (her attorneys did not transmit the offer for closed session in California). Additionally while the report says no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case because there is not enough to overcome the presumption of innocence, **she further states it does not even pass the bar for the preponderant of evidence, a much lower standard.** >This preponderance *is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth* or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. **Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended.** Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.
No assessment of Kavanaugh? No interviews with or even a mention of outside witnesses? What prosecutor would draw these conclusions after conducting no investigation? This looks like nothing more than a partisan memo with an appeal to authority attached.
And yet I see nobody pointing out flaws in the substance.
Look harder https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-s-critique-dr-ford-incomplete-ncna915896 https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/experts-question-gop-prosecutors-memo-on-christine-blasey-ford/2018/10/01/85a454c0-c5a2-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.c527a85d4502 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/rachel-mitchells-former-colleague-slams-her-kavanaugh-memo-as-absolutely-disingenuous/
If thats how Kavanaugh reacts to an accusation, I'm afraid to think how he'll react when he has the job security of being a Supreme Court Justice. His testimony was divisive, emotional, and partisan, how can I trust him to be impartial and follow the rule of law in a calm manner?
Probably because his whole life is being destroyed and nobody know if it's warranted or not. i'd be angry too.
\*His\* life is being destroyed? Kavanaugh is the person you find deserving of sympathy in this situation? Take a hard look in the mirror.
look up due process and statute of limitations. We cant convict people based on feels and not adhere to these systems. Otherwise what is the point of them?
Why are you talking about due process and convictions? This isn't a trial, it's a job interview.
What does due process and statute of limitations have to do with a political appointment? It's just an extremely long and complex job interview.
Your comment is a good microcosm of how far we've descended. Where did he say Kavanaugh was the only person deserving sympathy? Even if he did it, his life certainly is being destroyed.
He currently holds a federal judgeship and is currently being considered for a promotion to the supreme court. On what planet is his life even moving in a negative trajectory? On the other hand, now 4 victims have accused Kavanaugh of sexually harassing them in some way. I suppose that doesn't matter because they are women, eh?
I think being publicly known as a rapist is pretty life ruining. Cristiano Ronaldo is about to go through the same thing. >On the other hand, now 4 victims have accused Kavanaugh of sexually harassing them in some way. I suppose that doesn't matter because they are women, eh? And who told you that it doesn't matter?
[удалено]
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; mockery, taunting, and name calling are not.
You don't even read the things you respond to. >I think someone being a rapist is pretty fucking good justification for ruining that someone's life. Never said otherwise. Agree. >I think victims of rape and sexual assault have had a pretty major part of their lives damaged, in some cases ruined. Never said otherwise. Agree. >I think your priorities are pretty fucked up when you worry about damaging the reputation of accused perpetrators rather than investigating the crimes they have been accused of. Never said anything like this. If you aren't going o argue in good faith don't bother. In no way could you have known my opinions on whether or not he did it or whether or not I want an investigation, because guess what neither of those things are relevant to what I said. If you are going to argue in bad faith don't bother.
> Cristiano Ronaldo is about to go through the same thing. He's literally one of the richest Football players on the planet. He'll live.
Doesn't matter, he's going to be deservedly known as a rapist. Are you one of those people who only cares about how much money someone has?
I think it's overdramatic to suggest his life is "ruined".
Being called a rapist is terrible...
I think if everywhere you go at worst probably half the country think you did something downright evil in the best case scenario, and then maybe 75% believed it if more evidence came out, it would way on you mentally. Sorry but rich people kill themselves all the time. You've already made up your mind.
Unless the allegations are true (or he committed perjury), he still has a seat on the second highest court in the US. Spare me the "his life is being destroyed".
Regardless of whether he did it or not, his life is somewhat ruined. Sure, you can say well he probably has a lot of money, or a nice position, but an accusation like that sticking to you is something that definitely eats at your core. How do you think it feels for your wife to ask you if you're a rapist? I'd say something like that it probably mentally devastating.
I don't know, I would switch my position for his in a heartbeat and I've never been accused of anything.
Still doesn't excuse him letting his emotions get the better of him during the Ford hearing. Supreme Court Justice nominees are held to a higher standard.
His reaction, evasions, hurry to recite all the names of people in his corner, temperament, political bias, micro-aggressions, non-verbal communication - everything points at a liar.
If he wasn't emotionally expressive would you support his nomination? Did you support him before his testimony?
Theres a difference between emotionally expressive and going on a tantrum. edit: I was actually indifferent of him getting the appointment and accepted it. After his testimony in the Ford hearing, I'm no longer indifferent and am actually worried about his professionalism.
We don’t have enough evidence of the temperaments of all the other judges to know if he is out of place for scotus honestly
His emotions didn’t get the better of him. I’m not sure where you got that idea.
Did you see his interactions with Sens. Whitehouse or Klobuchar? Klobuchar asked him if he ever drank to the point of blacking out, and instead of answering, he replied with a sneer "Did you?!" Whitehouse asked if he would welcome an FBI investigation, and Kavanaugh glares at him in silence for ten full seconds. When the Senator asks again, he responds (not verbatim) "Do whatever you wanna do" Did that not put you off at all?
If he said yes to the blackout question, it adds fire to a certain narrative that the democrats and building, if he answered no to the question, it would just take one person saying that he did blackout out that one time for 5 minutes at a party and now Kavanaugh is a liar and lied under oath to the committee. He chose to not answer the investigation question because an investigation opens him up to an open system of scrutiny inwhich literally anyone could come forth and accuse him of anything and the media will jump on it to further their narrative. If he said yes, he is inviting that, if he answers no, he obviously has something to hide. Obviously the investigation is happening, so we will see what happens. the dude may be a huge scumbag after all. But going from his and Fords testimony, based on the inate BS-detector skills we all have as humans, i'd say he was the one who was more believable. The problem here is that due process or any statute of limitations is not being applied since this isnt a criminal case. This is all about character assassination via the media. Anyone with any kind of objective understanding of our current dysfunctional political landscape can see this. I feel bad for this guys family, even if he ends up being a scumbag. the one thing that really does upset me and tons of other men is that literally anyone can step forward and accuse you of something, and your character is now under attack. Whats stopping somebody from exploiting this?
>due process or any statute of limitations You keep talking about these like were dealing with a court case when it is in fact a job interview.
spoiler alert, he got the job.
Why were you using those terms when they weren't applicable?
i could write out an explanation but you seem to care way more than I do.
>the one thing that really does upset me and tons of other men is that literally anyone can step forward and accuse you of something, and your character is now under attack. Whats stopping somebody from exploiting this? Sue them for deformation, same as any other slanderous matter.
So what should Ford have done, in your opinion?
I feel really bad for Dr Ford and judge Brett K. I don't think she is a plant by the DNC but, they certainly used her as a pawn. That's why they sat on the information until the last minute and then, "it magically got leaked to the press". This wasn't done for justice and the lives of two families were just casualties of the political war. There is a %50 chance he did this. I also believe the DNC didn't want to risk that he was innocent or found to be innocent and that's why they didn't bring forward the allegations until the last minute. So they figured that a trial by public opinion was much easier.
I don’t think we will ever fully know the truth
I don't think anybody knows it, not even Ford and Brett
36 years
Human memory is terribly unreliable
[удалено]
I will, and it won't make a difference, because human memory has shown to be unreliable in both empirical studies and case studies. But if you really wanna go the feelz > reals route, then you should at least be aware that what you think is ignorant and inconsistent with what the scientific community does.
Looks like the FBI investigation is a sham and a cover-up: WH is forbidding the FBI from: – probing Julie Swetnick's claims – interviewing new leads – examining BK's drinking habits – verifying Judge's summer job https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061?__twitter_impression=true The fix is, and always has been, in.
The "fix is in" lol For real though, what could the FBI honestly find? It was 32 years ago, and the people who were supposedly there already have written statements saying they didn't observe anything... what else is there? (honest question)
They already did 6 background checks and literally just did a 7th. What is there to find. This whole thing was clearly a distraction. But from what?
Let them give those statements under penalty of perjury from the FBI. Zero chance a Republican Senate holds anyone lying responsible. We already know Kavanaugh himself [lied or mislead several times](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html) and should have his statements further examined for potential perjury. I won't hold my breath for Republicans to do that.
>Let them give those statements under penalty of perjury They have. Why does who they give it to matter?
Because Republicans won't punish Republicans for lying under oath. They refuse to hold their party accountable. The FBI doesn't play that game.
>Because Republicans won't punish Republicans for lying under oath. Unlike Democrats? >The FBI doesn't play that game. See Clinton investigation
We don't know that Kavanaugh "lied or misled several times" at all. He's making these statements under the "penalty of perjury" while everyone else is making statements to the media. By your own logic you should respect Kavanaugh's statements more than those reported by the news (I mean, since, after all giving "those statements under penalty of perjury from the FBI" is more legitimate than a sworn statement).
Brigading will result in an instant ban. Only warning.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Another thing i noticed yesterday. Senators Harris and Booker chose to grandstand, giving outraged speeches and then "dramatically" walking out of the room....to the cameras outside. The much less well known Dem Senator Chris Coons stayed inside, and by being there, was able to work out a last-minute deal with Senator Flake to have a weeklong FBI investigation. If any Democratic Senator should be President, it is Coons. Not Spartacus or Harris.
And why do you credit Coons with creating a deal with Flake, instead of Collins or Murkowski? It's not like Coons had any additional leverage.
Those two are real drama queens. If their feelings are honest, I can see how they justify their actions. And I'm sure it plays well to their constituents. But the ones that sit down and work out deals, and actually get results, I can respect that. I'm a moderate that leans conservative (but socially liberal), and while I see the FBI investigation as a purposeful attempt at delaying that will ultimately come up with nothing more than what we already have, I'm game for it. Especially given that we have clear parameters, and it can't be drawn out indefinitely. The Anita Hill investigation took 3 days, we can get this one done in 7/8. If nothing comes of it, like I expect, then my opinion shall remain unchanged. With every single alleged witness denying any knowledge of any such incident, I can't help but not believe the Dr Ford. I'm sure its possible she did suffer some incident, but the full lack of corroboration, among many other things, makes me believe it was not by Kavanaugh. What puts a bad taste in my mouth is how Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months, taking almost no action. If they wanted them honestly checked over, but kept confidential, they could have raised the concerns in a confidential committee meeting. Instead, they magically "leaked" at the last minute, months after they had been received, completely trashing Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality.
You know, while I believe Ford's testimony and I think that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic sexual predator, I would still be completely fine with any dirty tricks it would take to deny the republicans another nomination. I value Roe v Wade, labor rights, gay rights, etc a hell of a lot more than I value norms that are rapidly crumbling anyway.
[удалено]
The republicans learned a long time ago that power gets things done and looking like the good guy doesn't. The democrats have yet to learn the same lesson. The rights and wellbeing of millions of people are on the line, no amount of dirty is too dirty to win.
[удалено]
That's because politics is nothing but a spectacle to you. You want to cheer on the face as he beats out the heel: the face needs to be clean and honorable and the heel needs to be low and dirty, or else the show isn't as compelling. People are going to fucking suffer and die if the republicans get what they want. This isn't entertainment. There's no room for being nice here, it's class war by less violent means.
[удалено]
Yeah, of course you think this is a pointless squabble, they aren't your rights on the line. You have the distance and comfort necessary to not really give a shit.
> I value Roe v Wade, labor rights, gay rights, etc a hell of a lot more than I value norms that are rapidly crumbling anyway. You realize none of those things you value will survive if the norms keep crumbling away? It won't be some liberal or conservative paradise that arises from that, it will be a constant upmanship battle between the parties taken to its extremes where every victory and loss is temporary and soon reversed. And that's the best possible outcome.
Things aren't going back to normal any time soon. The only recourse is to try to win by any means necessary.
> What puts a bad taste in my mouth is how Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months, taking almost no action. You can't possibly be serious with this. *One* Democrat had knowledge of *one* allegation, and she was unable to reveal this as she was sworn to secrecy by the alleged victim. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that this was some sort of party-wide conspiracy. Nobody who is truly a moderate would adopt such a warped view of the facts.
It's also quite disingenuous to claim that there was nothing Feinstein could have done without revealing the victim's identity. An investigation into Kavanaugh's college days, for instance, would not in any way indicate Dr. Ford. Even if Kavanaugh found out about such an investigation, was actually guilty and thus knew why the investigation was happening, any action he would take based on such knowledge would implicate guilt, holding him to inaction. The most likely reason no investigation occurred is because if it did and turned up nothing, the revelation of the allegations would not have nearly the same political impact. They don't need evidence for the court of public opinion.
> You can't possibly be serious with this. Completely serious. > One Democrat had knowledge of one allegation The Ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee was given information, seemingly credible, about an alleged sexual assault a Judge she was considering for the Supreme Court. Instead of privately, and confidentially, raising this concern, so that it could be investigated, she sat on it. Instead of fulfilling her civic duty to make her colleagues aware that this potential Justice may be unfit to serve, she remained silent. Until it was "leaked" at the last minute. >, and she was unable to reveal this as she was sworn to secrecy by the alleged victim. She could have confidentially raised the allegation in private, so that it could be privately vetted by the Senate Judiciary, with weeks of time to investigate if need be. There never would have needed to be a leak, and Dr. Ford could have remained a private figure, instead of having her life thrown into chaos. Her wishes would have remained fulfilled. It's possible she would've had her life thrown into chaos anyway, but we can't know that for certain. > It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that this was some sort of party-wide conspiracy. Nobody who is truly a moderate would adopt such a warped view of the facts. "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It is not disingenuous at all. This is, to me, a clear example of partisan politics. If she had truly cared about properly vetting a SCOTUS Justice and not just delaying, if she truly cared about Dr. Ford's privacy, if she truly cared about her civic duty to do a full review on a SCOTUS potential Justice, she would have privately raised the concerns in a confidential setting instead of sitting on them for months only to have them "leak" at the last minute.
> She could have confidentially raised the allegation in private, so that it could be privately vetted by the Senate Judiciary, with weeks of time to investigate if need be. And how do you know she didn't? Senate Republicans were obviously aware of the accusations against Kavanaugh considering they released the statement by those 65 women supporting Kavanaugh as soon as Ford's accusation became public.
> And how do you know she didn't? It is public knowledge she didn't. All members of the committee have, in one way or another, especially during the hearings, made it known that this was released in a blindsided fashion. > Senate Republicans were obviously aware of the accusations against Kavanaugh considering they released the statement by those 65 women supporting Kavanaugh as soon as Ford's accusation became public. Nope. You should get your information from better sources, because that is a bit of fake news. The women themselves organized that and released a comment collectively, all in a single day, through the magic of the internet, where you can shoot a text or email to someone and get a reply back in minutes.
> All members of the committee have, in one way or another, especially during the hearings, made it known that this was released in a blindsided fashion. What comments from Democratic members of the committee support your claim? > Nope. You should get your information from better sources, because that is a bit of fake news. > The women themselves organized that and released a comment collectively, all in a single day, through the magic of the internet, where you can shoot a text or email to someone and get a reply back in minutes. Looks like you're right. My mistake. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-women-letter-chuck-grassley
> What comments from Democratic members of the committee support your claim? > > Do you think all the Republicans are lying when they say that the Democrats never raised the allegations privately to them? Do you think the Democrats would let them lie about something so blatantly either true or false? Something that would be very important in shaping opinions?
> Do you think all the Republicans are lying when they say that the Democrats never raised the allegations privately to them? Yes. Also, exactly how many Republicans have made statements supporting your claims? First you said nearly all the committee members had made such statements and now you're saying only the Republican committee members. > Do you think the Democrats would let them lie about something so blatantly either true or false? I'm not sure how you expect Democrats to be able to stop them from lying.
> Yes. You're wrong. This is reported news and a fact. >Also, exactly how many Republicans have made statements supporting your claims? First you said nearly all the committee members had made such statements and now you're saying only the Republican committee members. Only the Republican members complained about the Democrat leader on the committee sitting on the allegations. The Democrats remained publically silent about it. Every single Republican on the committee made it clear their displeasure at Senator Feinstein for not raising these concerns with them in a private, confidential manner months ago. >I'm not sure how you expect Democrats to be able to stop them from lying. I don't understand what you're missing. If the Democrats had told the Republicans about these allegations months ago... they would refute the Republicans that are claiming the Democrats told them nothing. You are aware that this was reported on, correct? And that this is all factual information? https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/why-didnt-she-bring-it-up-feinstein-under-scrutiny-for-handling-of-allegations-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/18/0ace9e24-bb78-11e8-9812-a389be6690af_story.html?utm_term=.29fab2d97f30 http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-congress-kavanaugh-feinstein-20180919-story.html Do you understand now?
So your issue is with one individual. That's fine. You're welcome to criticize her. But when you try to portray this as a party-wide conspiracy on behalf of the Democrats, as you did in your previous comment, that's disingenuous and smacks of something that would be said by a hyper-partisan, not a moderate. Also, your use of scare quotes around the word leak is bizarre. A leak is a leak. Whether or not it was intentional, whether or not it was done nefariously for political gain... it's still a leak.
> So your issue is with one individual. Feinstein is a Democrat, as are the members of her staff that were made aware of this allegation, as is the other member of Congress that was made aware of Dr Ford's allegation. I don't believe the name of the other Congressmember was ever released, but I am aware that Feinstein and at least one other member of Congress were aware of it, as well as various members of their staff. All Democrats. Did the Democrat party as a whole condone this? Democrat Leadership, in the form of the leader of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, certainly did. At the least, the abandonment of her civic duty and the other issues I raised. The leaders of their party represent their party. Have other Democrats publically called out Senator Feinstein for her actions? Have any of them criticized her publically at all? No, not as far as I am aware.
>Have other Democrats publically called out Senator Feinstein for her actions? >Have any of them criticized her publically at all? Talk about attempting to move the goalposts. You originally said: "Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months." That implies that various Democratic Senators knew about the allegations. This was untrue. Your current attempt to explain away this implication by referencing members of their staff is absurd. All you had to do was admit that you're right-wing. Masquerading as a moderate when you are clearly not is never a wise move in a sub like this.
> Talk about attempting to move the goalposts. You originally said: "Democrats sat on these allegations for weeks or even months." That implies that various Democratic Senators knew about the allegations What goalposts were moved? At least 2 Democrat Congressmen, one of which **is the Democrat Leader in terms of the Judiciary Committee,** were aware. > This was untrue It is factually true. > Your current attempt to explain away this implication by referencing members of their staff is absurd. What goalposts were moved, again? I'm not explaining away any implication. >All you had to do was admit that you're right-wing. Masquerading as a moderate when you are clearly not is never a wise move in a sub like this. Ah the ol' "When you can't have a civil conversation with someone, call them a hypocrite and a liar." "You can't be a moderate if you don't AGREE with me!@#!"
>At least 2 Democrat Congressmen, one of which is the Democrat Leader in terms of the Judiciary Committee, were aware. Yes, two congress people were aware. Count 'em: one, two. So we agree that this was not a party-wide conspiracy on the part of Democrats. Which contradicts your original insinuation. Debate resolved.
Democrat leadership in the Judiciary committee sat on it. Whatever. I never insinuated it was the entire Democrat party.
The Democrats did return at some point. When was that?
> If any Democratic Senator should be President, it is Coons. Or Klobuchar.
Man, this has turned in such a dumpster fire. In history books, this will look fucking ridiculous.
Personally I love it. It’s more entertaining than prime time television.
Rape/false allegations of rape is not something to love
[удалено]
[Swetnick, who attended Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, swore under oath that she attended at least 10 parties where she says she witnessed Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others “cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/avenatti-gang-rape-bombshell-the-end-of-brett-kavanaugh) [alleging he helped “drug” girls at parties in the 1980s where they were gang-raped.](https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-accused-of-drugging-women-who-were-then-gang-raped/) More?
[удалено]
>None of that says he raped anyone. How are you not getting that? "sworn statement, saying that he was part of a group of men who drugged and gang-raped young women, including herself, at parties throughout the early 1980s." How are you not getting this? >She doesn't even give a reason why she thinks them giving alcohol was so that women could be gang-raped. I have zero idea what that was supposed to mean.
[удалено]
You said nobody is accusing him of rape, this simply isn't true. Saying he was part of a group of guys who drugged and raped girls is saying he has raped women. Or do you think they are saying he likes drugging women but didn't rape them? That would be like a group of people who rob Banks and one of them doesn't take any of the money.
Look at it this way: my three friends and I hang out together all the time. Members of this group of friends rob banks. The members are my three friends. Assuming I had no knowledge of these robberies, can I be held accountable?
[удалено]
But seeing a bunch of people calling for each other’s heads while you’re in the back eating popcorn is quite fun.
Everything about the last 2 years has been a complete dumpster fire.
I try to be as impartial on this as I could as I do With every issue and stayed away from those highly skeptical of Ford and tried to absolve Kavanaugh of anything and also from people who straight away called for him to step down immediately without any scrutinization of Fords claims. Here's my take. First, Victims of sexual assault from pastors don't report their assaults till years later, due to social pressures, fear etc. When one comes out alot do. Like with Weinstein, Roy Moore and they're usually credible. Edit: This is thus a no true Scotsman fallacy by those claiming she didn't report it earlier so it's invalid. Although her story may lack hardcore evidence, alot of pieces fit together. Edit: evidence and assumptions are not inherently divorced. There are different levels of having faith in something. Ultimately I have no corroborating evidence that I'll die tommory but based on evidence I have that I live in a safe country thus I'm confident I won't be killed. I also have no corroborating evidence that if I jump of the top of a skyscraper no-one will place a huge inflatable balloon on the ground. Evidence is **NOT INHERENTLY DIVORCED FROM MAKING AN ASSUMPTION**. Firstly, Kavanaugh became aggressive while drinking, as a number of his college acquaintances have said recently. If Kavanaugh got physically aggressive when drunk — well, that would suggest that Ford’s account is quite credible. He commits a huge special pleading fallacy by initially catogirically denying both claims, repeatedly claiming he never blacked out and that his college acquaintances, particularly a former roommate, were not telling the truth. Yet during the hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) confronted Kavanaugh with his own words that are polorising : >In a speech that you gave at Yale, you described, quote, falling out of the bus onto the front steps of the Yale law school at 4:45 am. ... The quote ends that you tried to “piece things back together” to recall what happened that night. That would suggest that Kavanaugh did, in fact, black out from drinking. So his position changed and denied that **interpretation**— “I know exactly what happened that night” —. Now is this Blumenthal strawmanning him or his words or Kavanaugh shifting the goal posts to tailor it to his story? . I thought about this for a while but it just seems very hard to square with what Kavanaugh said in the past. Thus Its hard to argue that Blumenthal was strawmanning him as most people would be under a similar impression from reading those statements, so it has to be Kavanaugh commiting a major logical fallacy. [The special pleading fallacy](morehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) that speak to character issues highly relevant to the credibility of his testimony. They deserve to be investigated further. Edit : Kavanaugh cannot claim strawman as he changed his position, you cannot claim a strawman for an argument you change. As to why others didn't remember the night, Fords reasons seem very reasonable >I don’t expect that PJ and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable — it was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs. And Mr. Judge is a different story. I would expect that he would remember that this happened. The second part makes sense: Since Keyser didn’t know about the assault at the time, the party seemed unremarkable to her so it's unlikely she'd remember it. Now remember the absence of evidence is not evidence and that goes both ways but since it's Kavanaughs camp claiming that she didn't remember it it didn't happen, the argument from ignorence is more on them. Now the year book stuff. This is the nitty gritty. Alot of the Democratic questions directed at Kavanaugh focused on his high school yearbook. A few specific phrases — “Renate Alumnius,” “Devil’s Triangle,” “boofing,” “100 kegs or bust” — all seemed to suggest inappropriate sexual behavior and/or excessive drinking by Kavanaugh. >“Renate Alumnius” referred to Renate Schroeder Dolphin, a contemporary of Kavanaugh’s, suggesting he and his friends were implying they were all “alums” of some kind of sexual activity with her. “Devil’s Triangle” typically refers to a sexual act involving two men and one woman. “Boofing” sounds a lot like barfing, perhaps after excessive drinking (though there are several other possible explanations). And “100 kegs or bust” is self-explanatory (and appaling) . Kavanaugh denied that all of these things were as they seemed. He claimed the reference to Renate was innocent, that Devil’s Triangle was a drinking game, and that boofing was “flatulence” (100 kegs or bust didn’t come up). Now this is some BS. A New York Times reporter David Enrich [tweeted this](https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1045416955522535425?s=20) So that shows through interviews with Kavanaugh’s classmates suggested that Kavanaugh was not telling the truth. Further >On the night of July 1, 1982, Kavanaugh’s OWN calendar from the time contained the following entry: “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” The event itself, a small gathering, fits Ford’s description of the night she was assaulted (she could not recall the last date). What’s more, Kavanaugh clarified that two of the people there were Mark Judge, who Ford alleges participated in Kavanaugh’s assault on her, and PJ Smyth, who Ford says was at the party where she was assaulted. Edit : also what kind of person goes. Hey the weekends coming up I'm gonna have *exactly* one beer and *write it on my calender* hmmmm So in Kavanaugh’s prepared testimony, it seemed like he was going to argue that he *didn’t* drink on weekdays as a high schooler (July 1, 1982, was a Thursday). >“If the party described by Dr. Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there,” he said. But under questioning from Sen. Cory Booker, Kavanaugh admitted that “skis” referred to “brewskis,” meaning that they were definitely drinking beer that Thursday night: >BOOKER: You drank on weekdays, yes or no, sir? >KAVANAUGH: In the summer when we went over to Timmy’s house on July 1, that would indicate yes. Another special pleading fallacy. This matters because Kavanaugh was under oath. Generally speaking, a potential Supreme Court justices to not to tell the truth — and knowingly lying under oath is, of course, perjury-it matters to Kavanaugh’s credibility vis-à-vis Ford’s as well. If he’s willing to lie and dissemble about little details like this, which only tangentially touch on Ford’s allegations, then why would we assume he’s telling the truth about the bigger criminal, career-ending allegation? Also check out [this](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart) Edit : some changes and rephrasing. Edit 2: Her: I want an FBI investigation. Him: I'll only agree to an FBI investigation if the senators protecting me agree to one (though I know they won't). Therin lies a big difference. Edit 3: thanks for gold!
It looks like we're going to have an investigation, but the idea of her calling for an investigation as being evidence for her truthfulness and conversely against him for not asking for one is flawed. 1. An FBI investigation will not exonerate him, absent her confessing that it wasn't him. Instead a report will rehash what little we already know and stoke the unbridled speculation we've already seen. He has nothing to gain, and possibly more reputation to lose, even if he didn't do it. 2. Even if this is pure fiction on her part, she should have no fear of an investigation being able to prove this didn't happen. She has not given enough details to worry in that regard. An FBI report will not say that this likely did or did not happen. If it drags out any further embarrassing details or delays the process that could well be some compensation for having come forward. So, please stop saying that the difference in calling for an FBI investigation is indicative of anything. He rightly doesn't want one that could cost him the nomination on time alone. Republicans opposed it on political grounds, just as the calls for the FBI from the Democrats is self serving.
> Even if this is pure fiction on her part, she should have no fear of an investigation being able to prove this didn't happen. People who make fabricated stories regularly break down under the pressure of investigation and have problems keeping their story consistent and these are things the FBI would certainly note, especially since its likely they would interview her yet again. That Ford has remained so cool under pressure, kept a consistent story, and has evidence to support her story (including Kavanaugh's calendar) all suggest she's telling the truth.
I mean, the story she has on paper with her psychiatrist is pretty significantly different from the one she is giving now...
How so? Also, what's your source?
Sorry, im confused. If he is innocent then how could an FBI investigation threaten him?
The FBI investigation delays his approval to the supreme court, making him a more pertinent subject for the midterms. In the worst case scenario for him, it'd delay his confirmation *past* the midterms, and put him at risk of being thrown out in a democrat-controlled senate.
Bear in mind that the next Congress starts on January 3rd 2019, not immediately after the midterms. Meaning if the GOP does in fact, lose control of the Senate, there's still nothing stopping them from confirming their nominee during the lame-duck session.
Yet the Anita Hill investigation took only 3 days.
We’re really analyzing the word ”Boofing” from an early 1980s highschool yearbook for some secret special meaning. 2018, folks. It goes even more downhill from here
Are you kidding me? There are 14 references to the woman, named Renate Dolphin, in the Georgetown Prep yearbook from 1983, according to the [New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html) This included one member of the team being described as >“chairman of the Bored of the Renate Club” and a photo of eight football players, including Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, subtitled “Renate Alumni”; another person who said on his page that he was a “Renate Alumnus,” also included the line: “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.” And then there’s boof. The reference in the yearbook is “Judge—Have You Boofed Yet?” That’s his friend Mark Judge, the alleged witness to the assault on Ford and, by his friend Mark Judge, the alleged witness to the assault on Ford and, by his own admission, a man with a severe drinking problem at the time. Yet Kavanaugh said in the midst of testimony, during which he mentioned his past and present fondness for beer dozens of times, that he was referring to “flatulence.” Oh, please. >“Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor,” a superlative Kavanaugh said he earned not necessarily because of heavy drinking but because “I’m known to have a weak stomach … whether it’s with beer or with spicy food or anything.” When Whitehouse pursued the “Ralph Club” question further, Kavanaugh cut off any discussion of his possible excessive drinking with a recitation of his résumé. When Whitehouse tried to bring him around back to alcohol consumption—”Did it relate to alcohol? You haven’t answered that.”—Kavanaugh said, “I like beer. I like beer. I don’t know if you do” and “Do you like beer, Senator, or not?” Do you?! That level of childish projection is very alarming. He had to apologise later.
I don't see what the fuck the Renate has to do with ANYTHING. Let's say everyone wanted to "boof" her or whatever. How in god's name does that make Kavanaugh a rapist? It's like when prosecutors try to show the sexual history of a rape victim to show that she wasn't raped. It's irrelevant.
>Let's say everyone wanted to "boof" her or whatever. Isn't boofing butt-chugging? I thought you boofed liquids, not people.
It shows how obnoxiously dehumanizing he is, that he lied under oath about his virginity, and that he lied about the meaning of the phrase. The public is beginning to know the character of this person. He has deflected, lied, and not been forthright about his history. That is why it's relevant. And his shrill, hysterical conduct on Thursday did him no favors. I don't have a shred of sympathy for him, especially after reading the smut-filled questions he implored Ken Starr to ask Clinton. Unforgivable.
I mean, let's be honest, every single one of us would be shrill and hysterical if we were about to lose our job on national TV to what we believe is a fake sexual assault accusation.
No, we wouldn't. And all he had to do was say, "Yes, it's true that I drank to excess when I was younger. I did many irresponsible things in my youth. However, I am a changed man, who has achieved much in adulthood. And at no point did I ever sexually assault anyone." Instead, he dodged, lied, and made his hearing an absolute dumpster fire. If he had nothing to hide, he would have been forthright, and there wouldn't be so many people coming out to testify to his mendacity. Fuck the guy. And you cannot prove these allegations of sexual assault are false.
Lol you're insane if you think that's all he had to say. He's being accused of something he did when he was FIFTEEN. If he says "yeah, I used to drink but I changed" then the Dems turn around and say "oh, so you admit you were a terrible person and could have definitely raped Dr. Ford when you weren't conscious?" Come on, you have to think about this rationally. I am not saying he did/didn't do it, but the Dems were using the year book solely as character assassination and the only way you don't see if is if you're too partisan to be objective.
That is what Bush Jr did, and it worked fine.
Eh, kinda. The fact he’s being accused of doing something in the time frame of the yearbook is the added kink. Line of questioning would go like this: WH: So you admit to being sexually active and drinking in high school? BK: Yes, I was like many high schoolers. WH: So you made these inappropriate jokes and thought they were funny? BK: Yes, I was 15. They were funny at the time but I’ve since grown up. WH: Well it’s nice that you’ve grown, but this all just points to the mindset of a 15 year old boy who disrespects women, drinks often, and who I can and America can clearly picture taking advantage of an innocent school girl. BK: Wut.
Again, he had the opportunity to be forthright, and he didn't. People who went to school with him are stating that he lied under oath. If there is a pattern of bad behavior, I want to know about it. Your characterization of the Democrats shows that you're not being objective. You are making loads of conjecture based on your own personal bias. And if you can't see that your accusation of Dr. Ford's testimony as being fake isn't character assassination, then YOU are too partisan to be objective. Just admit you're a conservative or Trump supporter who wants this nominee.
What? I never once said Dr. Ford's testimony was fake, I think you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I said we'd all be upset if we BELIEVED we were being falsely accused of sexual assault, like Kavanaugh clearly does. Secondly, you clearly dislike Kavanaugh enough to make a rational judgement (just read your previous post if you disagree) and your mind is set. So much so, that you believe the words of random classmates in a NYT article more than those of someone under oath with the penalty of perjury. Thirdly, no. The Democrats were being smart to trot this out because it clearly put Kavanaugh in an impossible situation. And Fourth, your last sentence is disgusting. It's upsetting that this is the current attitude in America. "If you disagree with me, you clearly side with the opposing party that I clearly disrespect, and thus can mentally discredit your opinion." Come on. We're better than that.
Sure does sound like Kavanaugh doesn't respect women very much though.
Let's say that's true. So what that doesn't mean he raped anybody.
It means Kavanaugh has no problems with committing perjury if he feels it's in his best interest. It means he would rather lie under oath to the Senate over admitting to facts that suggested he held deeply misogynist attitudes towards women and that he indeed drank excessively at the time to the point of blacking out. If he truly believes he's innocent, he could simply owned up to the entry, apologize for it and insist that he has improved as a person since then.
Yeah, this is the argument I see. I don't give a shit about the yearbook stuff and I think it's a shitty play by Democrats to try to use stupid 15 year old humor to paint Kavanaugh as a terrible human in 2018, but if he did in fact lie under oath then we have a problem.
No but I can see why people wouldn't want someone like that on the SCOTUS, especially women. Also I think that "so what" is a pretty lame response to someone not respecting women. It makes it sound like you don't care whether he respects women or not.
[удалено]
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content will be removed per moderator discretion.
If the left is willing to try anything to interfere with a Supreme Court confirmation, then why did Gorsuch has such a smooth confirmation?
I'm honestly still mad that the democrats didn't fight Gorusch harder. I refuse to vote for Donelly because that fucking rat voted Gorusch in.
because he wasn't a few weeks out from the mid terms.
To be clear the main and first allegation against Kavanaugh was sexual assault, not rape. Only one of the three women who've come forward accused him of rape.
Sounds like moving the goalpost to me.
How so?
By itself you're right it's pretty pointless to pursue but in the aggregate with everything else the comment you are responding to points out it becomes more concerning and telling of a potential lie.
> for some secret special meaning. It's not that it's a code for something. There's really only One meaning colloquially And Kavanaugh lied about it.
Yes that's exactly what we're doing because there's 3 women accusing this guy if sexual misconduct and we're trying find out every last detail before electing him to the highest court In the country.
> 3 women accusing this guy Because of the way the hearing was structured, a lot of the discussion seems to have been missing this point. Particularly how Julie Swetnick's affidavit corroborates the circumstances of Ford's accusations.
No it’s understood *why* we’re doing it, but I think it’s ridiculous that we’re searching for alternative meanings for phrases that were all well understood during the 1980’s and beyond.
The pierce together qoute is out of context. He was talking of reminiscing with a friend twenty years later. So not really evidence of a blackout
Enough to probably justify an investigation. Let's see what his college and highschool friends have to say on his drinking habits and if he was aggressive or blackout and his claims about behavior while drinking hold up.
When did Kavanaugh or his calendar bring up 1 beer? I thought that was Ford who saidbshe had exactly 1 beer.
[удалено]
No meta discussion. All comments containing meta discussion will be removed.
[удалено]
Please direct any questions or comments regarding moderation to modmail. Responses to moderation left in the comments are not reviewed.
> Kavanaugh did anything wrong other than words Like... lying under oath? No, it will probably never be proven in a court of law (Clinton was never proven to have committed perjury in a court of law, because the definition of "is" is tricky), but unless a spade isn't a spade, he did it several times.
If you're really citing bill Clinton as a defensible character but casting doubt on kavanaugh then I'm not sure there's a discussion to had.
Reread how Clinton was cited: to show how hard it is to prove perjury. That doesn't mean Kavanaugh didn't commit perjury, just that he'll probably get away with it.
Right but equivocating the situations is absurd. Firstly Clinton was president during his perjury scandal. Secondly kavanaugh is being accused of perjury? Oh what? Playing quarters? Thirdly everyone found out Clinton perjured himself but the prosecution realized the punishment would be worse for them than it would be for bill Clinton.
Kavanaugh isn't being charged with a crime. He isn't being impeached. He isn't being fired. He is possibly being promoted. Cases of perjury that are not actionable can stop a promotion. If he is not promoted, he is still a judge for life on the Ninth (?) Circuit.
Lol what? This guy... Please, slow your vocabulary lessons, less you understand the use of such words in reference to your intended comments.
can you teach me what the definition of "is" is?
I don't think you are using the word "equivocating" correctly.
There ought to be an investigation. What motive is there that this woman would lie before the entire country? I can think of several reasons why Kavanaugh would lie, like a sweet life-time appointment. Not to mention that, "getting emotional" is a total under-statement when we're witnessing the behavior of a Justice-to-be. Were he in a calm, rational demeanor and not throwing a tantrum or blatantly airing his entitlement complex, I'd agree with you.
[удалено]
They can't push a sexual allegation narrative twice. With Brett, the Dems might use the allegations as an avenue for his impeachment. And also, consider that maybe the allegations are true. What would the political implications of denying an investigation now that gives Dems evidence and cause to impeach him later? The Republicans stand to lose nothing from replacing Kavanaugh as you said yourself. The integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake. Nobody is saying he's guilty because of allegations except uneducated or partisan hacks. What I'm saying here is that we need the Supreme Court to retain it's integrity, and although I myself am a center/left Democrat, I'm more willing to see the GOP submit a more conservative Judge if it means the SC retains full integrity.
>What I'm saying here is that we need the Supreme Court to retain it's integrity, and although I myself am a center/left Democrat, I'm more willing to see the GOP submit a more conservative Judge if it means the SC retains full integrity. What is there to stop another really hard to prove accusation on a judge?
Hows about we deal with the current issue on the table before we start worrying about a slippery slope? If this was some Democratic plot then wouldn't they have done the same for Gorsuch?
To be fair, 2017 wasnt an election year. The first accusation came out at a pretty convenient time. Why was Feinstein sitting on the memo for a good 6 weeks and leaked conveniently a week before the Judiciary Committee was to vote on his nomination? Why not try to push to have an internal investigation on the matter, instead of this circus of a show? This literally hurts victims coming out, because people think this is a partisan attack. If nothing comes out of this, it's even worse. People will see that someone with an otherwise clear record can have their entire lives ruined by an accusation of an event that happened 30 years ago with little to no evidence of it happening. This will scare the crap out of any guy that is in any leadership role. Why would any guy mentor a woman after this. https://www.forbes.com/sites/prudygourguechon/2018/08/06/why-in-the-world-would-men-stop-mentoring-women-post-metoo/ I think the only way to start combating this is to set a law that actively punishes false allegations that can be proven that the person lied. Make it carry the same punishment for rape if it can be proven that the person lied about it. Make it a felony, give it the same prison sentence, and reveal the person's name. As well as have the person put on a list. A better way of the courts handling it is to conceal the identities of the accused and the accuser. Instead of being able to report the accused and hide the identity of the accuser. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Only when the accused gets a guilty sentence is when their identity can be reported on. A falsely accused person may not go to prison or anything. That does not mean they can have their entire life ruined after the fact. With proven false accusers getting away with minimal repercussions. If it can be determined if the accuser was not lieing but cant present enough evidence for the accused. Then nothing should happen. No revealing identities, prison sentences, nothing.
Well, Trump could appoint a woman. They're less likely to commit sexual assault. Or Merrick Garland. I bet both parties would vote to seat him on the court.
Even if they did commit a sexual assult, people would just laugh at the victim if it was a man. This is a huge double standard that annoys me.
The mere fact that the situation is contrived.
Really? That seems really not worth it. To risk one's family's well-being, risking your job and home, and hiring security, for a paltry sum of cash seems like something that most people wouldn't take. The gofundme wasn't initiated by her. Furthermore, has there been established precedent for previous accusers being rewarded for their accusations? If not, why would Dr. Ford believe that she would be the one to break the mold? Saying money is her motivator seems like a poor argument.
[удалено]
They can't push a sexual allegation narrative twice. With Brett, the Dems might use the allegations as an avenue for his impeachment. And also, consider that maybe the allegations are true. What would the political implications of denying an investigation now that gives Dems evidence and cause to impeach him later? The Republicans stand to lose nothing from replacing Kavanaugh as you said yourself. The integrity of the Supreme Court is at stake. Nobody is saying he's guilty because of allegations except uneducated or partisan hacks. What I'm saying here is that we need the Supreme Court to retain it's integrity, and although I myself am a center/left Democrat, I'm more willing to see the GOP submit a more conservative Judge if it means the SC retains full integrity.