But that's now and not then. Why would anyone assume coming out now is less controversial? If you're saying that is the motivation it makes no sense.
Let's look at it this way: if you already are traumatized by an incident, and you believe you are going to be called a liar by half the country, my guess is that in all but the most extreme circumstances, you'll want to move on with your life and just hope you can grin and bear it. But when those men end up on the verge of the highest rungs of power, set to make decisions that will effect ALL women?? I would guess that is in the end the straw that breaks the camel's back. Getting away with it because of how our society is structured is one thing, but ascending to the heights that people like Trump and Kavanaugh have?? That's probably too much to bear for the victims.
I'd also point out again that she didn't WANT to come out, for all the reasons I have been talking about. Feinstein did not out her. It just so happened that the story took on a life of it's own over the course of the weekend and she had no choice. The turning over of the information and the article in the New Yorker made it impossible for her to be taken seriously if she stayed anonymous (as was demonstrated by more than one poster in this very forum saying they wanted a name to go with the accusation). Her choice by Friday afternoon was to either come out and tell her story, or let Kavanaugh skate to the most powerful court in the land without even having to address what he is alleged to have done.
What you are going to see now is a full-blown assault on her by one of America's two major political parties. Ask Anita Hill how that benefited her life. For that matter ask Monica Lewinsky even though that is an entirely different situation. The President of the United States will ABSOLUTELY personally attack this woman within the next 48 hours. You think she wants that?? She is likely going to have to hire bodyguards once Trump opens his mouth about this.
I had a similar situation--not in the sense that I was victimized, but in the sense that I had damaging information about a certain person I knew.
At my workplace, there was a profoundly unqualified individual who hurt the organization and the people we served. This person was not fit for his position or any position of authority.
Why haven't I shouted it out to the world, names and dates and all? Well, I did plan on spreading the information to certain people, but a friend of mine just wanted to move on. So I moved on with my life and let it go. I've mentioned the event, but I've never named this individual, out of respect for my friend's desire to move on.
Some might say that I have no right to stay silent, and that if I have something negative to say, I am morally obligated to say it as quickly and loudly as possible. I disagree.
Let's say I later discover that this person--who, when given a position of power, abused it and showed zero loyalty to the people beneath him--is about to be given an enormous amount of power over the lives of millions of people.
Do I stay quiet so people won't bother me? Or do I go public with the information on the grounds that people need to know that this person has done something that disqualifies them for a position of power?
Honestly, if some random idiot does something bad, you don't need to shout it out to the whole world. But if that idiot is about to attain a position of power, the least you can do is inform people.
Put it another way. If you're a politician who's trying to figure out who to appoint to the Supreme Court, do you want to know if a candidate has committed a crime in the past? Or would you not care?
Note that I'm not even saying I believe this woman's story per se. I'm stating a basic principle: if we hear an allegation about a candidate for a high office, we should take it seriously, and not immediately assume that it's just some partisan attack.
Scrutiny is normal for Supreme Court justices during the confirmation process. In fact, scrutiny is the entire point of the confirmation process.
Note that I'm not even saying I believe this woman's story per se. I'm stating a basic principle: if we hear an allegation about a candidate for a high office, we should take it seriously, and not immediately assume that it's just some partisan attack.
Scrutiny is normal for Supreme Court justices during the confirmation process. In fact, scrutiny is the entire point of the confirmation process.
That's really at the core of the whole issue here. There has been almost no meaningful scrutiny of Kavanaugh because of unprecedented withholding of information about him (certainly unprecedented compared to Kagen and Sotomayor). Now we are finding out why Mitch McConnell did not want Trump to nominate Kavanaugh. I firmly believe based on the circumstantial evidence we have that at the very least, McConnell and Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley knew about this and were hoping it wouldn't get out. If Feinstein knew, Grassley did. If Grassley knew, there is no way he didn't tell the Majority Leader. And there is simply no way that letter of 65 women wasn't sitting in a drawer somewhere waiting to be used. I will never believe that they contacted over 5 dozen women overnight and got them to sign a document for the Senate Judiciary Committee. That defies all realms of credibility.
I am also seeing alot of commentary about this incident excusing it because it allegedly happened when he was drunk and 17, and the overwhelming subtext of these comments is that this is how normal 17-year old males act when they are drunk. And as a person who was drunk nearly every damn weekend for my junior and senior years of high school, and was around about another half dozen males during most of those weekends, I can definitely say that this is absolutely, 100% not the case, and I am starting to really question the past of anyone who is making this argument. Our hormones were as wild and out of control as any adolescent boys. Not a single time did anyone attempt to rape a woman in a bedroom. Frankly, if such a thing had ever happened that person would likely have had their ass beaten to a pulp.
Just wanted to drop a quick update on Beto vs Raphael "Ted" Cruz.
In Texas, Cruz has resorted to running scams on the elderly to grab campaign cash while he still can by mailing out fundraising forms sealed in envelopes titled "Summons"
I read somewhere on Twitter (from someone who apparently works at the Post Office) that because of one certain thing that is printed on the envelope, there is technically nothing illegal about what the Cruz campaign is doing here. That doesn't change the fact that they are CLEARLY trying to make people who get this in mail initially believe it is some sort of directive from a court, possibly for jury duty or something similar. It's unbelievably dirty pool, and not even against his opponent. It shows complete contempt for the intelligence and time of his own constituents.
I still think Cruz probably pulls it out in Texas, but the way the GOP is going on this Kavanaugh nomination, they may be setting themselves up for a complete tsunami of women voters flooding polling places all across this country. If Cruz gets beat, I'm buying some expensive tequila and doing 3 or 4 shots in celebration. He's one of the most unlikable people I've ever seen in politics.
I can't wait until Trump comes to campaign for Cruz and some group puts up on billboards the things they said about each other when they ran for the Presidency. Specifically, Cruz called Trump a "sniveling coward." And Cruz said Trump is a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral" and a "serial philanderer."
Trump, in return, tweeted "How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?" and "To the best of my knowledge, not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, okay?"
He also suggested Ted Cruz's father was involved in the killing of JFK, and compared Cruz's wife with Melania (Guess who Trump thought came out ahead?) As well as calling him "Lyin' Ted Cruz".
Because would they really support one another after all that?
I can't wait until Trump comes to campaign for Cruz and some group puts up on billboards the things they said about each other when they ran for the Presidency. Specifically, Cruz called Trump a "sniveling coward." And Cruz said Trump is a "pathological liar," "utterly amoral" and a "serial philanderer."
Trump, in return, tweeted "How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?" and "To the best of my knowledge, not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, okay?"
He also suggested Ted Cruz's father was involved in the killing of JFK, and compared Cruz's wife with Melania (Guess who Trump thought came out ahead?) As well as calling him "Lyin' Ted Cruz".
Because would they really support one another after all that?
Every single one of his primary opponents said he was flat-out unfit for office. It was in no way your usual primary rhetoric. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz. You don't have to search long and hard to find them saying the same things about him that the left has been saying all along. Yet every single one of them has completely changed their tune. I understand how primary rhetoric works, but you do not go from calling someone a con-man, a fraud, and utterly immoral to all of a sudden thinking they are someone different just because they won. They all still believe these things, they are just flat-out terrified of the Republican base voters that Trump has co-opted into was is basically a political cult that doesn't function so much on any actual political principles as it does on sticking it to the right people (liberals, immigrants and minorities). There isn't a single day of this Presidency where I haven't felt the overwhelming purpose of it is simply to make liberals cry. We're dealing with a political movement that is basically primarily motivated by spite rather than policy.
If she does all the Republicans will attack her merciliessly and defend Kavanaugh. It doesn't even matter if there was video of Kavanaugh and his drunk friend holding her down trying to rape her they'd still attack her somehow. They'd find someway to spin it to attack her guaranteed. "You should have not been wearing that dress!" or something worse that that.
As a reminder Trump himself was credibly accused of rape and sexual assault by more than a dozen women. Republican voters didn't give a damn and voted for him anyway.
Republicans have been happy to live in Fantasyland where the conartist of Trump University is telling the truth and everyone else is lying - the women who said Trump raped them, this woman here, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, the entire media, Obama's birth certificate, the Puerto Rican death toll, your lying eyes about crowds at innaugaration - all lies, right. Only the dear leader tells the truth, right.
Now I really wish Trump had appointed Kethledge instead of Kavanaugh. I thought it would be cool if we had a justice from Michigan. I also wasn't a fan of Kavanaugh because he was the 'establishment' guy. Once again Trump let me down.
If this happened, I don't necessarily think something stupid you did while drunk in high school makes you a bad person, but he should own up to it. I wonder if he would even remember it? That's the bad thing about abusing alcohol...
I had a similar situation--not in the sense that I was victimized, but in the sense that I had damaging information about a certain person I knew.
At my workplace, there was a profoundly unqualified individual who hurt the organization and the people we served. This person was not fit for his position or any position of authority.
Why haven't I shouted it out to the world, names and dates and all? Well, I did plan on spreading the information to certain people, but a friend of mine just wanted to move on. So I moved on with my life and let it go. I've mentioned the event, but I've never named this individual, out of respect for my friend's desire to move on.
Some might say that I have no right to stay silent, and that if I have something negative to say, I am morally obligated to say it as quickly and loudly as possible. I disagree.
Let's say I later discover that this person--who, when given a position of power, abused it and showed zero loyalty to the people beneath him--is about to be given an enormous amount of power over the lives of millions of people.
Do I stay quiet so people won't bother me? Or do I go public with the information on the grounds that people need to know that this person has done something that disqualifies them for a position of power?
Honestly, if some random idiot does something bad, you don't need to shout it out to the whole world. But if that idiot is about to attain a position of power, the least you can do is inform people.
Put it another way. If you're a politician who's trying to figure out who to appoint to the Supreme Court, do you want to know if a candidate has committed a crime in the past? Or would you not care?
Honestly, I would want to know.
i can't know he's committed a crime before the criminal procedure has progressed to a certain point where substantive arguments have been laid out in front of the judge. without that or first-hand knowledge (such as a circulating video that clearly shows something) i'm literally mentally incapable of thinking he did it before that stage has been reached.
so yeah, i want to know if he's committed a crime, but to know, it takes something specific, and before we have some of that, it's not that i just want to know - it's that i positively don't know, and i can only affirm that i don't know. that's why based on that i can't tolerate that someone should bear adverse consequences such as an unpleasant delay in his career etc. it's not right.
...that's why based on that i can't tolerate that someone should bear adverse consequences such as an unpleasant delay in his career etc. it's not right.
They are trying to rush him through the process, that's not right either. They want to ignore this accusation and the fact that he's been lying under oath during this process at least 5 times. Additionally, they have hidden over 90% of his documents including the entire time he worked in the George W. Bush White House. That's not right, either.
Now I really wish Trump had appointed Kethledge instead of Kavanaugh. I thought it would be cool if we had a justice from Michigan. I also wasn't a fan of Kavanaugh because he was the 'establishment' guy. Once again Trump let me down.
If this happened, I don't necessarily think something stupid you did while drunk in high school makes you a bad person, but he should own up to it. I wonder if he would even remember it? That's the bad thing about abusing alcohol...
I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea he doesn't remember it. That's sort of the point though. Something the man doesn't even find significant enough to remember has stayed with the woman for 30 years.
As to @bob_veng's point, this isn't a criminal proceeding and I don't think anyone is suggesting it ever will be. This is a Supreme Court nomination, the court of public opinion should matter to SOME degree.
I'm also wondering if conservatives (in general) who are arguing something done at 17 shouldn't follow you around would join me in my longtime opposition to ANYONE under 18 being tried as an adult for any crime.
They want to ignore this accusation and the fact that he's been lying under oath during this process at least 5 times. Additionally, they have hidden over 90% of his documents including the entire time he worked in the George W. Bush White House.
Honestly, this is far worse than the accusation of assault, even if we knew for a fact it was 100% true. Lying under oath on even a single question should be disqualifying, and the administration's sudden classifying of Kavanaugh's records indicates that there's a massive amount of information the administration knows would be disqualifying or scandalous. You don't hide a Supreme Court candidate's history right before confirmation hearings unless you know they wouldn't get confirmed if that history were public.
They want to ignore this accusation and the fact that he's been lying under oath during this process at least 5 times. Additionally, they have hidden over 90% of his documents including the entire time he worked in the George W. Bush White House.
Honestly, this is far worse than the accusation of assault, even if we knew for a fact it was 100% true. Lying under oath on even a single question should be disqualifying, and the administration's sudden classifying of Kavanaugh's records indicates that there's a massive amount of information the administration knows would be disqualifying or scandalous. You don't hide a Supreme Court candidate's history right before confirmation hearings unless you know they wouldn't get confirmed if that history were public.
McConnell knew, and he specifically was worried about the paper trail because of his time in the Bush White House. Because McConnell may be a cynical bastard, but he isn't dumb. Kavanaugh was almost certainly one of the prominent leakers in the Ken Starr investigation, and his time in Bush White House would almost certainly reveal him to being involved with helping to authorize torture. Also, that 65 woman letter the Republicans came up with is, ummmm, shall we say, falling apart at the seams:
You can get a good sense of who the Dems truly are by difference in the way they react to Keith Ellison and Kavanaugh’s allegations. I'm well beyond tired of the cynical, circumstantial faux morality of politics, where the only real crime is party affiliation and who is in power at any given time.
Now I really wish Trump had appointed Kethledge instead of Kavanaugh. I thought it would be cool if we had a justice from Michigan. I also wasn't a fan of Kavanaugh because he was the 'establishment' guy. Once again Trump let me down.
If this happened, I don't necessarily think something stupid you did while drunk in high school makes you a bad person, but he should own up to it. I wonder if he would even remember it? That's the bad thing about abusing alcohol...
I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea he doesn't remember it. That's sort of the point though. Something the man doesn't even find significant enough to remember has stayed with the woman for 30 years.
As to @bob_veng's point, this isn't a criminal proceeding and I don't think anyone is suggesting it ever will be. This is a Supreme Court nomination, the court of public opinion should matter to SOME degree.
I'm also wondering if conservatives (in general) who are arguing something done at 17 shouldn't follow you around would join me in my longtime opposition to ANYONE under 18 being tried as an adult for any crime.
Kavanaugh's high school best friend wrote a book in 97 called "Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk". He described being blackout drunk often and saying if you could breathe you could hook up. He doesn't name drop Kavanaugh but does mention a character he calls “Bart O’Kavanaugh.”
So yeah maybe he doesn't remember. Because he and Kavanaugh we're alcoholics.
His drinking became so extreme that he had blackout episodes, and woke up on the floor of a restaurant bathroom with no memory of how he got there. Once “I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated,” he wrote.
You can get a good sense of who the Dems truly are by difference in the way they react to Keith Ellison and Kavanaugh’s allegations. I'm well beyond tired of the cynical, circumstantial faux morality of politics, where the only real crime is party affiliation and who is in power at any given time.
This is awfully close to "Democrats are immoral. Furthermore, putting moral weight on party affiliation is bad."
You can get a good sense of who the Dems truly are by difference in the way they react to Keith Ellison and Kavanaugh’s allegations. I'm well beyond tired of the cynical, circumstantial faux morality of politics, where the only real crime is party affiliation and who is in power at any given time.
This is awfully close to "Democrats are immoral. Furthermore, putting moral weight on party affiliation is bad."
The only moral weight that is in play here *is* party affiliation. The accusations against Ellison are worse, more recent, and more credible. There is no plausible moral case to otherwise be made for radio silence on this issue and outrage over the Kavanaugh allegations.
For me, there's a different level of urgency. Kavanaugh is about to get a lifetime appointment, and we just found out about these allegations. That's a good reason to pump the brakes. It's much easier to oust Ellison later.
Here is the most in-depth account of the accusations against Ellison, in which he is essentially accused of emotional abuse and also of trying to remove a woman from his bed. To say that Ellison berating his GF in the midst of a bad break-up is "worse" than attempted rape is a hell of stretch. This is NOT to say the Ellison allegations shouldn't be taken seriously, and frankly, the Dems are the ONLY party in recent memory that has ANY track record of ousting people accused of sexual harassment or assault. I personally came here despite a heavy heart and called for Al Franken to resign long before anyone else in this forum did, weeks before he was actually forced out . Despite him being one of my favorite politicians and Senators up to that point. Again, people can read the Ellison article for themselves. If what it describes is true, it is certainly pretty bad, but it is NOT in any way in the same realm as attempted rape. In fact there is no accusation of sexual abuse anywhere in the article. This is NOT to minimize the seriousness of emotional abuse, but saying that it is worse than attempting to rape someone and covering their mouth so they can't scream is pretty ridiculous. I also fail to see how they are "more credible". They may be AS credible, but not more. The only correct statement that was made is that they are indeed more recent. Anyway, certainly not trying to hide anything, so here is the NY Times piece:
For the record, I don't even like Ellison. He's careless with his associations and rhetoric and the only reason he was made co-chair of the DNC was because he LOST the actual vote to Tom Perez, and it was a nod to the Bernie wing to give him some sort of title. He is leaving Congress, and is running for Attorney General of Minnesota. There is a second allegation mentioned in the article from 2006, but in that case Ellison is the one who was granted a restraining order by a judge against his accuser. So people can make of that what they will. It seems to me that Ellison has had some shitty relationships. He definitely should have never put his hands on a woman for ANY reason, but the absolute worst he is accused of in this article is pulling and pushing. Which in my mind is unacceptable. But is, once again, NOT attempted rape. The problem with quantifying emotional abuse is that is inherently subjective, while physical abuse is almost entirely objective and impossible to deny. Do I believe Ellison did these things?? Yeah I do, or at least I am more than willing to entertain the possibility. But I don't even know if any of them would rise to the level of a police visit for a domestic violence call. I mean, my parents had far worse fights than this when I was growing up, minus any physical aspect. Again, I don't want to make light of ANY accusation, but that article to me reads like the story of a really bad break-up, for which Ellison certainly has to take responsibility if only on a personal, moral level. I think alot of people are going to read this article and come to the conclusion that there was alot of bad blood between the two of these people in their relationship, that things went south, and that there were some incidents that took place that were regrettable. Am I missing something here??
The woman also says she has a video tape of the alleged physical aspect of this encounter, insists that it exists, but won't release it. It's fine for her to make the claim and be expected to be heard out even if there is no tape. But if she is going to insist there is a tape, and then refuse to produce it even though she has it, that strikes me as fairly ridiculous. If the tape exists and she released it, it would end his career in public life instantly if it shows what she is claiming. If not saying it didn't happen. But to say you have video evidence that you aren't going to show is just absurd.
I'm not familiar with Ellison's case, but if it's bad, we should condemn both him and Kavanaugh based on how serious and credible it is--not paper over Kavanaugh because Ellison somehow excuses it.
If we're motivated by principles rather than party affiliation, we shouldn't give Kavanaugh a pass just because "Well, there are bad Democrats, too, and the important thing is that the Democrats are the bad guys." Otherwise were indulging in the same callous whataboutism that's so popular among Russian trolls.
@WarChiefZeke, I think it's more important to judge Kavanaugh on his own merits, not on whether some other unrelated guy was bad. The important thing is the strength of Kavanaugh's moral character, not which party is better than the other.
As to @bob_veng's point, this isn't a criminal proceeding and I don't think anyone is suggesting it ever will be. This is a Supreme Court nomination, the court of public opinion should matter to SOME degree.
I'm also wondering if conservatives (in general) who are arguing something done at 17 shouldn't follow you around would join me in my longtime opposition to ANYONE under 18 being tried as an adult for any crime.
I know it isn't but i don't see why it can't be, in principle. a woman has reported she's been a victim of an attempted rape. So has she? I really want the answer. Rape is the worst crime aside from murder. First degree rape in MaryIand has a life sentence. If she felt scared for her life, it might very well be first degree rape. I'm never going to have that answer if this doesn't become a criminal case. For everyone who doesn't need a serious path of inquiry and will be happy with a circus run by politicians and the media i have to say - i can't stand by them.
I can never think he did it based on facebook- and tv-induced groupthink. Washington Post is a bad newspaper and i don't trust them. They don't make this story persuasive for me, or almost any other story. Notes from the therapist? There's no Kavanaugh's name in there and the number of perpetrators is wong. That sucks. Mentioning she was scared for her life even though the stated facts of the event don't make that look like a justified, real, fear? I'm ~50% certain that that sentence is a constructed, coached, insertion into her story to make it fit a more severe legal definition in order to make the rape claim harder to relativise, because that's always the biggest issue with attempted rape - was it really attempted rape or completed (or attempted) something else? That's a super hard question i won't have content writers from Macedonia deciding for me. Public opinion has become completely devalued. I can't stand anyone else, any movement, any bloc deciding for me what has happened. For all the people who want, and like that sort of indignation - they're really on the wrong side of history. That's not the progressive force, that's not the force of change. Not real politics either. It's just a big mess.
I'm not familiar with Ellison's case, but if it's bad, we should condemn both him and Kavanaugh based on how serious and credible it is--not paper over Kavanaugh because Ellison somehow excuses it.
If we're motivated by principles rather than party affiliation, we shouldn't give Kavanaugh a pass just because "Well, there are bad Democrats, too, and the important thing is that the Democrats are the bad guys." Otherwise were indulging in the same callous whataboutism that's so popular among Russian trolls.
@WarChiefZeke, I think it's more important to judge Kavanaugh on his own merits, not on whether some other unrelated guy was bad. The important thing is the strength of Kavanaugh's moral character, not which party is better than the other.
And I think we shouldn't ignore Ellison or minimize the allegations because he is a democrat or hang Kavanaugh because he is not one, which appears to be the much more pressing threat here.
It's easy to say we should judge everyone on their own merits, when conveniently the only merits anyone is interested in judging are those of political convenience. Of course I agree we should judge accusations on their merits. In this case, we have two word vs word accusations. One from relatively recently after the alleged incidents occurred and no clear evidence of weaponization. And one from decades ago, when a man was 17, that was never mentioned until now in the heat of some political feud. Which one sounds more credible on it's face? To me, the answer is obvious.
If you want actual justice, the last thing you want is for these things to be obviously weaponized for politics, rather than dealt with by the justice system, when they happen, as they should, which is why I hate bringing these up at all in the first place. And I wouldn't, were the hypocrisy not so painfully obvious.
Why is Ellison's accuser MORE credible?? I don't understand what the criteria is. You seem to be engaging in the exact weaponizing you are decrying. Especially given the fact that she has claimed to have a videotape that proves the allegation that she won't produce. Are people seriously buying into the idea that Kavanaugh's accuser planted a story with her therapist 6 years ago in anticipation that Donald Trump would become President and name Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018?? Does she have access to a time machine?? Is she secretly the long-lost daughter of Doc Brown??
Also (and this has NOTHING to do with the veracity of either allegation) of course Kavanaugh is a bigger story. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is only eclipsed in power by the Presidency itself. The idea that a single House seat in Minnesota would receive the same amount of coverage or scrutiny is not even remotely realistic.
Comments
I'd also point out again that she didn't WANT to come out, for all the reasons I have been talking about. Feinstein did not out her. It just so happened that the story took on a life of it's own over the course of the weekend and she had no choice. The turning over of the information and the article in the New Yorker made it impossible for her to be taken seriously if she stayed anonymous (as was demonstrated by more than one poster in this very forum saying they wanted a name to go with the accusation). Her choice by Friday afternoon was to either come out and tell her story, or let Kavanaugh skate to the most powerful court in the land without even having to address what he is alleged to have done.
What you are going to see now is a full-blown assault on her by one of America's two major political parties. Ask Anita Hill how that benefited her life. For that matter ask Monica Lewinsky even though that is an entirely different situation. The President of the United States will ABSOLUTELY personally attack this woman within the next 48 hours. You think she wants that?? She is likely going to have to hire bodyguards once Trump opens his mouth about this.
At my workplace, there was a profoundly unqualified individual who hurt the organization and the people we served. This person was not fit for his position or any position of authority.
Why haven't I shouted it out to the world, names and dates and all? Well, I did plan on spreading the information to certain people, but a friend of mine just wanted to move on. So I moved on with my life and let it go. I've mentioned the event, but I've never named this individual, out of respect for my friend's desire to move on.
Some might say that I have no right to stay silent, and that if I have something negative to say, I am morally obligated to say it as quickly and loudly as possible. I disagree.
Let's say I later discover that this person--who, when given a position of power, abused it and showed zero loyalty to the people beneath him--is about to be given an enormous amount of power over the lives of millions of people.
Do I stay quiet so people won't bother me? Or do I go public with the information on the grounds that people need to know that this person has done something that disqualifies them for a position of power?
Honestly, if some random idiot does something bad, you don't need to shout it out to the whole world. But if that idiot is about to attain a position of power, the least you can do is inform people.
Put it another way. If you're a politician who's trying to figure out who to appoint to the Supreme Court, do you want to know if a candidate has committed a crime in the past? Or would you not care?
Honestly, I would want to know.
Scrutiny is normal for Supreme Court justices during the confirmation process. In fact, scrutiny is the entire point of the confirmation process.
I am also seeing alot of commentary about this incident excusing it because it allegedly happened when he was drunk and 17, and the overwhelming subtext of these comments is that this is how normal 17-year old males act when they are drunk. And as a person who was drunk nearly every damn weekend for my junior and senior years of high school, and was around about another half dozen males during most of those weekends, I can definitely say that this is absolutely, 100% not the case, and I am starting to really question the past of anyone who is making this argument. Our hormones were as wild and out of control as any adolescent boys. Not a single time did anyone attempt to rape a woman in a bedroom. Frankly, if such a thing had ever happened that person would likely have had their ass beaten to a pulp.
In Texas, Cruz has resorted to running scams on the elderly to grab campaign cash while he still can by mailing out fundraising forms sealed in envelopes titled "Summons"
https://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Cruz-should-rethink-his-summons-mailer-12942010.php
I still think Cruz probably pulls it out in Texas, but the way the GOP is going on this Kavanaugh nomination, they may be setting themselves up for a complete tsunami of women voters flooding polling places all across this country. If Cruz gets beat, I'm buying some expensive tequila and doing 3 or 4 shots in celebration. He's one of the most unlikable people I've ever seen in politics.
Trump, in return, tweeted "How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?" and "To the best of my knowledge, not too many evangelicals come out of Cuba, okay?"
He also suggested Ted Cruz's father was involved in the killing of JFK, and compared Cruz's wife with Melania (Guess who Trump thought came out ahead?) As well as calling him "Lyin' Ted Cruz".
Because would they really support one another after all that?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-assault-accusation-confirmation-hearing.html
If she does all the Republicans will attack her merciliessly and defend Kavanaugh. It doesn't even matter if there was video of Kavanaugh and his drunk friend holding her down trying to rape her they'd still attack her somehow. They'd find someway to spin it to attack her guaranteed. "You should have not been wearing that dress!" or something worse that that.
As a reminder Trump himself was credibly accused of rape and sexual assault by more than a dozen women. Republican voters didn't give a damn and voted for him anyway.
Republicans have been happy to live in Fantasyland where the conartist of Trump University is telling the truth and everyone else is lying - the women who said Trump raped them, this woman here, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, the entire media, Obama's birth certificate, the Puerto Rican death toll, your lying eyes about crowds at innaugaration - all lies, right. Only the dear leader tells the truth, right.
If this happened, I don't necessarily think something stupid you did while drunk in high school makes you a bad person, but he should own up to it. I wonder if he would even remember it? That's the bad thing about abusing alcohol...
so yeah, i want to know if he's committed a crime, but to know, it takes something specific, and before we have some of that, it's not that i just want to know - it's that i positively don't know, and i can only affirm that i don't know. that's why based on that i can't tolerate that someone should bear adverse consequences such as an unpleasant delay in his career etc. it's not right.
As to @bob_veng's point, this isn't a criminal proceeding and I don't think anyone is suggesting it ever will be. This is a Supreme Court nomination, the court of public opinion should matter to SOME degree.
I'm also wondering if conservatives (in general) who are arguing something done at 17 shouldn't follow you around would join me in my longtime opposition to ANYONE under 18 being tried as an adult for any crime.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-high-school-pal-writes-134224211.html
So yeah maybe he doesn't remember. Because he and Kavanaugh we're alcoholics.
His drinking became so extreme that he had blackout episodes, and woke up on the floor of a restaurant bathroom with no memory of how he got there. Once “I had the first beer, I found it impossible to stop until I was completely annihilated,” he wrote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/us/keith-elllison-karen-monahan.html
For the record, I don't even like Ellison. He's careless with his associations and rhetoric and the only reason he was made co-chair of the DNC was because he LOST the actual vote to Tom Perez, and it was a nod to the Bernie wing to give him some sort of title. He is leaving Congress, and is running for Attorney General of Minnesota. There is a second allegation mentioned in the article from 2006, but in that case Ellison is the one who was granted a restraining order by a judge against his accuser. So people can make of that what they will. It seems to me that Ellison has had some shitty relationships. He definitely should have never put his hands on a woman for ANY reason, but the absolute worst he is accused of in this article is pulling and pushing. Which in my mind is unacceptable. But is, once again, NOT attempted rape. The problem with quantifying emotional abuse is that is inherently subjective, while physical abuse is almost entirely objective and impossible to deny. Do I believe Ellison did these things?? Yeah I do, or at least I am more than willing to entertain the possibility. But I don't even know if any of them would rise to the level of a police visit for a domestic violence call. I mean, my parents had far worse fights than this when I was growing up, minus any physical aspect. Again, I don't want to make light of ANY accusation, but that article to me reads like the story of a really bad break-up, for which Ellison certainly has to take responsibility if only on a personal, moral level. I think alot of people are going to read this article and come to the conclusion that there was alot of bad blood between the two of these people in their relationship, that things went south, and that there were some incidents that took place that were regrettable. Am I missing something here??
The woman also says she has a video tape of the alleged physical aspect of this encounter, insists that it exists, but won't release it. It's fine for her to make the claim and be expected to be heard out even if there is no tape. But if she is going to insist there is a tape, and then refuse to produce it even though she has it, that strikes me as fairly ridiculous. If the tape exists and she released it, it would end his career in public life instantly if it shows what she is claiming. If not saying it didn't happen. But to say you have video evidence that you aren't going to show is just absurd.
If we're motivated by principles rather than party affiliation, we shouldn't give Kavanaugh a pass just because "Well, there are bad Democrats, too, and the important thing is that the Democrats are the bad guys." Otherwise were indulging in the same callous whataboutism that's so popular among Russian trolls.
@WarChiefZeke, I think it's more important to judge Kavanaugh on his own merits, not on whether some other unrelated guy was bad. The important thing is the strength of Kavanaugh's moral character, not which party is better than the other.
I can never think he did it based on facebook- and tv-induced groupthink. Washington Post is a bad newspaper and i don't trust them. They don't make this story persuasive for me, or almost any other story. Notes from the therapist? There's no Kavanaugh's name in there and the number of perpetrators is wong. That sucks. Mentioning she was scared for her life even though the stated facts of the event don't make that look like a justified, real, fear? I'm ~50% certain that that sentence is a constructed, coached, insertion into her story to make it fit a more severe legal definition in order to make the rape claim harder to relativise, because that's always the biggest issue with attempted rape - was it really attempted rape or completed (or attempted) something else? That's a super hard question i won't have content writers from Macedonia deciding for me.
Public opinion has become completely devalued. I can't stand anyone else, any movement, any bloc deciding for me what has happened. For all the people who want, and like that sort of indignation - they're really on the wrong side of history. That's not the progressive force, that's not the force of change. Not real politics either. It's just a big mess.
It's easy to say we should judge everyone on their own merits, when conveniently the only merits anyone is interested in judging are those of political convenience. Of course I agree we should judge accusations on their merits. In this case, we have two word vs word accusations. One from relatively recently after the alleged incidents occurred and no clear evidence of weaponization. And one from decades ago, when a man was 17, that was never mentioned until now in the heat of some political feud. Which one sounds more credible on it's face? To me, the answer is obvious.
If you want actual justice, the last thing you want is for these things to be obviously weaponized for politics, rather than dealt with by the justice system, when they happen, as they should, which is why I hate bringing these up at all in the first place. And I wouldn't, were the hypocrisy not so painfully obvious.
Also (and this has NOTHING to do with the veracity of either allegation) of course Kavanaugh is a bigger story. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is only eclipsed in power by the Presidency itself. The idea that a single House seat in Minnesota would receive the same amount of coverage or scrutiny is not even remotely realistic.