Correct me if i an wrong, but Trump was not anti interventionism on middle east in the past?
He made all kinds of claims and has done the opposite. 'Drain the swamp' was another and he's packed his administration with corrupt insiders and lobbyists.
Why do we have to defend Saudi Arabia's oil at all? What happened to "America First". It's not our problem. They are 3rd in military spending iirc.
15 of the 19 Sept 11th 2001 attackers were from Saudi they can protect their own oil.
This story is in regards to (mostly (Deborah Ramirez):
Mr. Kavanaugh, now a justice on the Supreme Court, has adamantly denied her claims. Those claims became a flash point during his confirmation process last year, when he was also fighting other sexual misconduct allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, who had attended a Washington-area high school near his.
Ms. Ramirez’s story would seem far less damaging to Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation than those of Dr. Ford, who claimed that he pinned her to a bed, groped her and tried to remove her clothes while covering her mouth.
But while we found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Ramirez’s story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.
At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.
We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)
So not only is Kavanaugh a liar, but the FBI "investigation" was a complete sham, and seems to have not actually taken place in any substantial way AT ALL.
And before the gaslighting goes into full-force, let's get one thing perfectly straight here. Brett Kavanaugh's defense was NOT that he made some bad decisions as a youth and he regrets anything that may have happened. He could have said that and gotten confirmed with the exact same vote totals in the Senate. No, his claim was that none of it EVER HAPPENED. And he is a liar. And he lied about it under oath in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Which means that one of 9 people among hundreds of millions of Americans chosen to be the ultimate arbiters of the LAW in this country perjured himself to get the job. We all knew this at the time. It's gone down the memory-hole, and many suggested we were ruining a man's life with baseless smears. The fact that that narrative has now completely fallen apart is par for the course at this point. Kavanaugh was exactly what we said he was.
They weren't right about anything, and still aren't. But it does say quite a bit about them that they are willing to publish the unverified rumors that not even the alleged victim claims to remember, so long as somebody somewhere will say it happened, and treat that as absolute fact.
I'm amazed that they didn't just take the loss, but actually doubled down on their nonsense.
It's also probably the case that her denying it and not wanting to be interviewed probably had something to do with the FBI clearing it.
Are you really sure? This idea of a strategic interest in Saudi Arabia seems to me to be outdated thinking. The world has far more known oil reserves than it could burn without climate change being even more catastrophic than we're already heading for. While that could be changed if serious money was committed to direct extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere, it would be more cost effective to just change the source of energy. The US is also currently self-sufficient in oil, so it has neither a current, nor a future strategic interest.
I'm super sympathetic to the argument being made here, but one key interest being protected is keeping the price of oil low. It's a not a smart long-term interest, imo, because of climate change. But it's undoubtedly the case that disruptions to output will increase cost and make life a little bit tougher for consumers of oil. This has been one of the big factors in why the US has such a strong alliance with Saudi Arabia. Not that we need their oil, but rather that the world economy is very much dependent on its flow.
They weren't right about anything, and still aren't. But it does say quite a bit about them that they are willing to publish the unverified rumors that not even the alleged victim claims to remember, so long as somebody somewhere will say it happened, and treat that as absolute fact.
I'm amazed that they didn't just take the loss, but actually doubled down on their nonsense.
Is something unverified if the FBI is not allowed to verify it? There's a difference between investigating something and clearing it and just ignoring it. Yes both are technically "unverified" but the meaning is vastly different.
Brett Kavanaugh lied. He lied and perjured himself on the stand about everything from the devil's triangle being a drinking game to not watching Blassey-Ford's testimony and then describing it in detail. He acted like a mad clown with the crying and ranting about the Clintons. Several women and several dozen witnesses were prepared to testify to the FBI about their experiences with him sexually harrassing women but Republicans and the injustice department successfully limited the scope to where they didn't even interview Kavanaugh or Blassey Ford much less most of the other credible allegations.
None of this mattered to the conservatives, they are ok with liars, rapists, con men and pedophiles as long as they are on their side. Trump, Kavanaugh and Roy Moore are good examples of those qualities that conservatives "proudly" cast votes for.
Saudi Arabia is at the crux of all our problems in the Middle East. Our involvement there is what radicalized Bin Laden in the first place. Despite 80% of the hijackers being from Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration played patty-cake with them and went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq instead (because one dead Muslim is as good as another I guess). More recently, we continue to provoke Iran on purpose by tearing up agreements and then expecting them to still bide by the terms, while we ink multi-billion dollar arms deals with the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia DESPITE Congress voting multiple times to stop funding their war in Yemen. And let's not forget who has bought out an entire floor of Trump Tower. But yeah, as long as Billy Bob is able to put cheap gas in his pick-up, I guess this is all fine.
Yemen's Houthi rebels said they're responsible for the attacks, but US officials are ignoring that and trying to blame Iran because they don't like Iran. At any rate, it's not our problem.
An inconvenience or sticker-shock at the gas pump of US consumers is not a legitimate pre-text for war. And the fact that so many people think it is shows the bottomless depths of US arrogsnce.
When Dom Pedro II reached the throne, 96% of the population was illiterate. When he leaved after the military coup, only 52% and most of then was slaves.
1860-1889 had almost 10% of growth per year. Brazil moved from an poor colony into the 4th greatest economy in the world in less than 3 generations, this "late empire" period in particular was one of the highest growths on the human history.
An inconvenience or sticker-shock at the gas pump of US consumers is not a legitimate pre-text for war. And the fact that so many people think it is shows the bottomless depths of US arrogsnce.
Hmm... in many ways we're all complicit in this. It's important to note that the price of oil creates a ripple effect throughout the economy. We're very lucky in a way to have not lived thru a serious oil crisis since 1979. But important to note that even in 1979, output only decreased by about 4%, but the price of crude oil doubled in the period. There's some other issues at play such as the finance industry's influence on pricing. There is a legitimate security interest in preserving stability in Saudi extraction. Not just for the US, but for its allies in Europe.
I'm not advocating for war or anything like it here, so don't mistake me. But we shouldn't underestimate how much of the US's current economy *depends* on low oil prices, and the global economy as well. And that's a serious problem that needs to be overcome. Obviously it's a terrible reality to be in, but it's one that we continue to entrench ourselves in when we build communities, lifestyles and economies that rely on extracting hydrocarbons.
But we shouldn't underestimate how much of the US's current economy *depends* on low oil prices, and the global economy as well. And that's a serious problem that needs to be overcome.
Ok so the economy depends on oil prices, so what does a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, which is another country and has their own military, have to do with us?
Why even does it demand a military response at all? It demands that Saudi should step up their own security that's it.
It's not any more ridiculous of a security issue than saying climate change is also a security issue for the US. People would be hurt in significant ways by an oil price shock. It's obviously an open question as to whether this merits US involvement and the US, afaik, has no treaty obligation to respond to security threats to SA in the same way as we would have an obligation with a Western European state, for example.
In my opinion, obviously it doesn't warrant US response, not yet anyways. But I don't think this is a straightforward question. Just as Syria's civil war has created some issues with our European allies with massive immigration, so too would a war between SA and Iran, only on a much grander scale. I think people underestimate how much of the economic well-being that we enjoy in well off countries depends on global stability. And the people hurt the worst by a shock to that stability won't be the wealthy, it will be people who struggle to pay their bills.
They weren't right about anything, and still aren't. But it does say quite a bit about them that they are willing to publish the unverified rumors that not even the alleged victim claims to remember, so long as somebody somewhere will say it happened, and treat that as absolute fact.
I'm amazed that they didn't just take the loss, but actually doubled down on their nonsense.
Is something unverified if the FBI is not allowed to verify it? There's a difference between investigating something and clearing it and just ignoring it. Yes both are technically "unverified" but the meaning is vastly different.
Brett Kavanaugh lied. He lied and perjured himself on the stand about everything from the devil's triangle being a drinking game to not watching Blassey-Ford's testimony and then describing it in detail. He acted like a mad clown with the crying and ranting about the Clintons. Several women and several dozen witnesses were prepared to testify to the FBI about their experiences with him sexually harrassing women but Republicans and the injustice department successfully limited the scope to where they didn't even interview Kavanaugh or Blassey Ford much less most of the other credible allegations.
None of this mattered to the conservatives, they are ok with liars, rapists, con men and pedophiles as long as they are on their side. Trump, Kavanaugh and Roy Moore are good examples of those qualities that conservatives "proudly" cast votes for.
Of course the FBI is *allowed* to verify it. My point was, if she denies any memory of it, and doesn't want to be interviewed about it, what is the FBI supposed to do? No victim, no convincing evidence otherwise, no crime. This is ultimately even less credible than Ford, even after it was stated by her lawyer her motivation to come forward was to protect abortion law*, because at least she can claim some memory, and wants to cooperate.
At the end of the day, I find it hard to believe someone is lying on the stand, barring evidence, unless they are found guilty of the underlying crime. There is no reason to do so, so I assume bad memory at worst. Especially about events a few decades prior. Just basic Occam's Razor here, it makes no sense and is not necessary to add malice to the equation, and in fact it confuses things more than clarifies. But really I just don't care whether or not he was honest or not about watching Ford's testimony- unproven- or the names of things from so long ago- unproven- or what have you. It's not even a crime to lie about irrelevant details, even on the stand, even intentionally. I care about the accusations, is he or is he not guilty of what he is accused of? This game reminds me of the Mueller Saga, where after years of a consistent stream of claims were proven false his detractors latched onto any minor infractions during the process that may or may not have occurred, and treat this as a retroactive excuse to do everything they wanted to do on the basis of the accusations anyway. If he went on the stand and said nothing but curses, i'd respect him even more. There should be no respect given to show trials and perversions of justice.
* Here's the video of that. Even the Washington Post knows it looks bad.
It is absolutely a crime to lie to Congress when under oath, and we should absolutely not make special exceptions for perjury.
It cannot possibly be bad memory that made Kavanaugh lie about the meaning of Devil's Triangle and boofing, his virginity lasting through high school, and his drinking history. You don't forget when you lost your virginity. You don't forget the meaning of slang terms for threesomes and anal sex when they were significant enough to put in your yearbook. And if you're a remotely honest human being, you don't lie to Congress just to increase your chances of gaining the most powerful judicial seat in the country.
That is his motive for lying. His perjury earned him lifelong job security and a massive gain in political power.
It is absolutely a crime to lie to Congress when under oath, and we should absolutely not make special exceptions for perjury.
It cannot possibly be bad memory that made Kavanaugh lie about the meaning of Devil's Triangle and boofing, his virginity lasting through high school, and his drinking history. You don't forget when you lost your virginity. You don't forget the meaning of slang terms for threesomes and anal sex when they were significant enough to put in your yearbook. And if you're a remotely honest human being, you don't lie to Congress just to increase your chances of gaining the most powerful judicial seat in the country.
That is his motive for lying. His perjury earned him lifelong job security and a massive gain in political power.
Actually, he would have gotten the job if he had simply admitted to all of it or just played dumb about it. Nothing would have changed. He lied about it because that behavior gave more creedence to the claims, because it was all enveloped in this overarching frat boy culture where women were objects to be used at the whim of these boys who knew they were being groomed to be future masters of the universe. He lied because he could. Lying about it and getting away with it is half the point on the right. It's a power move, where both they and the people who opppose them both know the score, and they relish in the fact that they know they are untouchable.
Also, the bad memory defense is horseshit. Apparently, he had vivid memories of himself studying or lifting weights in the same time-frame, but magically had a complete blackout in the part of his brain that dealt with the yearbook quotes. And let's not even get into or rehash that Kavanaugh allies were running oppo research on his accusers before they were even publically revealed, which means SOMEONE told them who to dig up dirt on in advance. Lucky guess I suppose.
Moreover, it is true that the EXTRA allegation we didn't know of at the time is flimsy. That is not the crux of the article. The point is that there are witnesses who heard about the Deborah Ramirez case at the time, LONG before Kavanaugh was ever a judge, much less a Supreme Court nominee.
So let's break down the score: Ford tells her therapist years before the nomination about the incident. At least 7 people admit to having knowledge of the Ramirez incident at the time. And the right-wing machine somehow magically knows EXACTLY who the women are who are going to come forward before their names appear in any news stories. This must be another one of those situations where the Democrats are using their secret time-machine to manipulate the narrative. One wonders why they don't just go back and stop Bill Clinton from ever meeting Monica Lewinsky or tell Hillary not to use her private email with this awesome contraption. They seem to have only used it to frame Brett Kavanaugh. Seems like an awfully stupid allocation of a resources.
Trump is once again going to his old playbook, telling Kavanaugh he should sue for libel. I agree. Kavanaugh should sue for libel. And then he can be deposed and lie under oath again. That'll happen the moment Trump sues his accusers, which, I'll remind everyone for the dozenth time, he promised he would do and never did for the exact same reason. I mean, come on boys. Your names have been dragged through the mud and besmirched beyond repair. Grow some balls and step up to the plate. Sue your accusers and the press. I triple-dog dare you.
At the end of the day, I find it hard to believe someone is lying on the stand, barring evidence, unless they are found guilty of the underlying crime. There is no reason to do so, so I assume bad memory at worst. Especially about events a few decades prior. Just basic Occam's Razor here, it makes no sense and is not necessary to add malice to the equation, and in fact it confuses things more than clarifies. But really I just don't care whether or not he was honest or not about watching Ford's testimony- unproven- or the names of things from so long ago- unproven- or what have you. It's not even a crime to lie about irrelevant details, even on the stand, even intentionally. I care about the accusations, is he or is he not guilty of what he is accused of? This game reminds me of the Mueller Saga, where after years of a consistent stream of claims were proven false his detractors latched onto any minor infractions during the process that may or may not have occurred, and treat this as a retroactive excuse to do everything they wanted to do on the basis of the accusations anyway. If he went on the stand and said nothing but curses, i'd respect him even more. There should be no respect given to show trials and perversions of justice.
I agree with you that most people do not lie on the stand, but that applies as much to witnesses as the accused. Given that the stories told by Kavanaugh and Ford are irreconcilable, either someone is lying or their memories are worse than mine. It seems to me it's clear who we should believe:
- even Trump described Ford as a credible witness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Kavanaugh's supporters have not produced any evidence that anything she said is wrong (beyond the fact that Kavanaugh has a different story). There is though at least some evidence that corroborates her basic story (timing and location of the party in the calendar, past statements by the only other witness and her own past statements).
- Kavanaugh made numerous statements inconsistent with the evidence. I haven't gone back to the story to refresh my failing memory, but just off the top of my head those included:
# the definitions of the terms in the yearbook you've already mentioned.
# his insistence he never went to parties during the week (contradicted by the calendar he submitted into evidence).
# his statement of the relative positions of his and Kavanaugh's house (intended to cast doubt on whether she would actually have attended the relevant party).
# the extent of his drinking.
# whether or not he knew about potential allegations of sexual assault prior to those becoming public.
Using Occam's Razor it seems straightforward to me who to believe on the fact of whether an assault occurred. You could also apply the Razor in terms of motivation to lie. Is it more likely that Ford would lie, given she had no history of attention-seeking behavior and knew how much testifying was going to disrupt her existing life? Or is it more likely that Kavanaugh would lie in order to get a huge step up in power and prestige - things which his past life and career shows he valued?
The thing I disagree with most about your position though, is the idea that lying about 'irrelevant details' is itself irrelevant when being considered for a position as a Supreme Court judge. It would seem to me that regard for the truth is extremely pertinent for a judge and in my view Kavanaugh's propensity to lie would alone make him unsuitable to be a Supreme Court judge - even if the assault on Ford never took place.
In relation to this bit of your post, I'm not sure why it looks bad. Kavanaugh has a history in relation to Roe vs Wade and it would be no surprise if Ford was aware of that. If she supports the existing interpretation of the case - and knew Kavanaugh does not - that would provide some additional motivation for her to come forward. It always seemed a bit of a surprise to me that she was willing to put herself into such a high profile and controversial position. If she feels strongly about abortion, that just provides a bit more explanation for why she did so.
They weren't right about anything, and still aren't. But it does say quite a bit about them that they are willing to publish the unverified rumors that not even the alleged victim claims to remember, so long as somebody somewhere will say it happened, and treat that as absolute fact.
I'm amazed that they didn't just take the loss, but actually doubled down on their nonsense.
Is something unverified if the FBI is not allowed to verify it? There's a difference between investigating something and clearing it and just ignoring it. Yes both are technically "unverified" but the meaning is vastly different.
Brett Kavanaugh lied. He lied and perjured himself on the stand about everything from the devil's triangle being a drinking game to not watching Blassey-Ford's testimony and then describing it in detail. He acted like a mad clown with the crying and ranting about the Clintons. Several women and several dozen witnesses were prepared to testify to the FBI about their experiences with him sexually harrassing women but Republicans and the injustice department successfully limited the scope to where they didn't even interview Kavanaugh or Blassey Ford much less most of the other credible allegations.
None of this mattered to the conservatives, they are ok with liars, rapists, con men and pedophiles as long as they are on their side. Trump, Kavanaugh and Roy Moore are good examples of those qualities that conservatives "proudly" cast votes for.
Of course the FBI is *allowed* to verify it. My point was, if she denies any memory of it, and doesn't want to be interviewed about it, what is the FBI supposed to do? No victim, no convincing evidence otherwise, no crime. This is ultimately even less credible than Ford, even after it was stated by her lawyer her motivation to come forward was to protect abortion law*, because at least she can claim some memory, and wants to cooperate.
This was posted by CBS just an hour ago, far from being right wing lunatics, and I felt it was a necessary addition to this.
Suspect motivations, victims who know nothing, witnesses who aren't witnesses. It shows why it is so incredibly important to stick to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, even if it isn't the natural partisan reflex. Verify, not trust.
They weren't right about anything, and still aren't. But it does say quite a bit about them that they are willing to publish the unverified rumors that not even the alleged victim claims to remember, so long as somebody somewhere will say it happened, and treat that as absolute fact.
I'm amazed that they didn't just take the loss, but actually doubled down on their nonsense.
Is something unverified if the FBI is not allowed to verify it? There's a difference between investigating something and clearing it and just ignoring it. Yes both are technically "unverified" but the meaning is vastly different.
Brett Kavanaugh lied. He lied and perjured himself on the stand about everything from the devil's triangle being a drinking game to not watching Blassey-Ford's testimony and then describing it in detail. He acted like a mad clown with the crying and ranting about the Clintons. Several women and several dozen witnesses were prepared to testify to the FBI about their experiences with him sexually harrassing women but Republicans and the injustice department successfully limited the scope to where they didn't even interview Kavanaugh or Blassey Ford much less most of the other credible allegations.
None of this mattered to the conservatives, they are ok with liars, rapists, con men and pedophiles as long as they are on their side. Trump, Kavanaugh and Roy Moore are good examples of those qualities that conservatives "proudly" cast votes for.
Of course the FBI is *allowed* to verify it. My point was, if she denies any memory of it, and doesn't want to be interviewed about it, what is the FBI supposed to do? No victim, no convincing evidence otherwise, no crime. This is ultimately even less credible than Ford, even after it was stated by her lawyer her motivation to come forward was to protect abortion law*, because at least she can claim some memory, and wants to cooperate.
This was posted by CBS just an hour ago, far from being right wing lunatics, and I felt it was a necessary addition to this.
Suspect motivations, victims who know nothing, witnesses who aren't witnesses. It shows why it is so incredibly important to stick to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, even if it isn't the natural partisan reflex. Verify, not trust.
Suspect motivations, victims who know nothing, witnesses who aren't witnesses. It shows why it is so incredibly important to stick to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, even if it isn't the natural partisan reflex. Verify, not trust.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. This wasn't a criminal case. This was a hearing to select one person out of 323 million to fill one of nine lifetime appointment seats.
There should have been less controversial candidates the president could have put up for nomination. This stuff did not happen to Neil Gorsuch, the actual 'stolen' SCOTUS seat, so the 'this is all partisan' stuff does not fly.
In a lot of people's opinions, he was not verified properly and why he was chosen (with all the baggage such as loans being paid off for him) was never really answered.
Suspect motivations, victims who know nothing, witnesses who aren't witnesses. It shows why it is so incredibly important to stick to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, even if it isn't the natural partisan reflex. Verify, not trust.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. This wasn't a criminal case. This was a hearing to select one person out of 323 million to fill one of nine lifetime appointment seats.
There should have been less controversial candidates the president could have put up for nomination. This stuff did not happen to Neil Gorsuch, the actual 'stolen' SCOTUS seat, so the 'this is all partisan' stuff does not fly.
In a lot of people's opinions, he was not verified properly and why he was chosen (with all the baggage such as loans being paid off for him) was never really answered.
Could have, but didn't for two reasons. The first being that they didn't have to, but the second is far, far more important. At this point the GOP doesn't just excuse sexual assault, they seem to be actively in favor of it to keep women in their place.
I'd like to think that my youth was the same as the overwhelming majority of men, who certainly did stupid things, but sexual assault was not one of them. There were dozens of girls I was acquaintances with who as an adolescent I would have had interest in sleeping with. Never did anything in the same solar system as what Kavanaugh was accused of multiple times. Neither did anyone I knew in high school. I can pretty much guarantee my friends and I drank as much as Kavanaugh did. So, again, I'd like to believe this is not normal behavior. But the GOP's tactic on this has been to convince a certain segment of men that it IS normal, and just "part of growing up", or it was way more prevalent than I realized. But I assure you, it is 100% possible to drink to excess on a near weekly basis, be sexually attracted to any number of women at a party, and also not whip out your dick and wave it around like a magic wand. And those are just the minor allegations.
The fact is, it wouldn't matter a single ounce if there was video tape of what Kavanaugh did to Ford or what Trump did to Jean Carroll. The vast majority of the GOP and conservative voters would simply not care. They don't view it as important in any way. Sexual assault has become something that women "whine" about and should just suck up and take as a normal part of American life. We see this in everything from the sentences handed down to young rich kids who are actually CONVICTED of rape to the attitude of parents who try silence their own daughters when they bring forth these stories. This is what the much derided term (at least on the alt-right) "rape culture" means. It's a society where the stigma of coming forward will make you as a VICTIM the pariah, and if you do come forward, the standard of proof you have to meet to be believed (at least in terms of a person of power) means you better have at least 3 or 4 DOZEN other women willing to come forward with you like in the case of Bill Cosby. And even then, a certain segment of the population is STILL going to think ALL of those women are making it up.
So even if you give zero credibility to any right wing source, that's two mainstream sources of generally left wing persuasion confirming the story. The witness for Ford is not only recanting but claiming she was pressured into it.
I agree with you that most people do not lie on the stand, but that applies as much to witnesses as the accused. Given that the stories told by Kavanaugh and Ford are irreconcilable, either someone is lying or their memories are worse than mine. It seems to me it's clear who we should believe:
If this is a test in credibility I find Kavanaugh far more believable. For one, none of his witnesses are claiming intimidation. Two, he has no ulterior motives. Three, there is nothing but anyone's word that he has done anything wrong, so I have no reason to doubt him at this point in the first place. So far, Kavanaugh has come out of this looking less shady than everyone else, to any fair eye.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Kavanaugh's supporters have not produced any evidence that anything she said is wrong (beyond the fact that Kavanaugh has a different story). There is though at least some evidence that corroborates her basic story (timing and location of the party in the calendar, past statements by the only other witness and her own past statements).
This is entirely backwards. Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything Ford says it wrong. Ford has to prove what she says is right. "Not being proven wrong" isn't sufficient to draw conclusions, or even inferences. The deck is stacked highly against anyone in the position of having to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
In relation to this bit of your post, I'm not sure why it looks bad. Kavanaugh has a history in relation to Roe vs Wade and it would be no surprise if Ford was aware of that. If she supports the existing interpretation of the case - and knew Kavanaugh does not - that would provide some additional motivation for her to come forward. It always seemed a bit of a surprise to me that she was willing to put herself into such a high profile and controversial position. If she feels strongly about abortion, that just provides a bit more explanation for why she did so.
Come now, it should be fairly clear what the problem is with having your motivation to make claims against someone is so you can achieve political objectives. Even the journalists can see it. Those political objectives would still exist, and this method would still serve those political objectives, whether or not any actual event occurred. This is equally motivating for a false report as it is for a real one, not so if your motivation is something more pure, like "I want justice for what was done to me."
All in all I just find your analysis of Ford far too generous to the point of ignoring the various elephants in the room. Your analysis of Kavanaugh is just fine though.
If this is a test in credibility I find Kavanaugh far more believable. For one, none of his witnesses are claiming intimidation. Two, he has no ulterior motives. Three, there is nothing but anyone's word that he has done anything wrong, so I have no reason to doubt him at this point in the first place. So far, Kavanaugh has come out of this looking less shady than everyone else, to any fair eye.
Any fair eye would not reach these conclusions. He has shown himself to be deceptive and multiple people and witnesses have described predatory behavior. Kavanaugh's ulterior motive is he wanted to get the job security and the top job in his field, obviously. If he had not been confirmed his career would be over.
Dr. Ford has not changed her story - a "close friend" has and then given her opinion of Ford's story to the Washington Examiner which has zero credibility. While this 'friend' has repeated her opinion elsewhere the first place she went to is a partisan hack 'news' rag that spins every story. This is suspect.
This friend doesn't change that Doctor Ford and others have given their stories to therapists, told others about Kavanaugh's despicable behavior years earlier. Why did this friend feed this story now? I'll speculate that she did it because she is a right winger, she's drank the koolaid. She is giving her perhaps honest interpretation of what's going on - but I'll bet she's not "close friends" with Ford anymore and she's saying what she wants to say and it has led people that are pre-disposed to wanting to dismiss the whole thing to do so exactly as you have.
About proof - there is nothing but anyone's word as far as we know. But there is proof that Kavanaugh is a liar and temperamentally unhinged He lied about sex words and he lied about things on his calendar that he himself brought into evidence. His shameless unhinged rants alone are proof that he should not be managing a taco Bell much less a Supreme Court Justice.
The fact is the Justice Department's FBI did a sham investigation. Multiple witnesses described how they reached out and where denied a voice. Major allegations were not investigated. Ford nor Kavanaugh were interviewed. Why not get Kavanaugh to tell his story - if he's not lying he should not mind talking to the FBI. Also, Kavanaugh's entire record of his work during the GW Bush years were hidden, why?
All this leads to the undeniable conclusion that the Supreme Court is illegitimate first with denying Merrick Garland a vote, and second with Kavanaugh who is unhinged, has a history of sexual assault, has a history of alcoholism, and is a partisan hack and a liar.
So even if you give zero credibility to any right wing source, that's two mainstream sources of generally left wing persuasion confirming the story. The witness for Ford is not only recanting but claiming she was pressured into it.
I agree with you that most people do not lie on the stand, but that applies as much to witnesses as the accused. Given that the stories told by Kavanaugh and Ford are irreconcilable, either someone is lying or their memories are worse than mine. It seems to me it's clear who we should believe:
If this is a test in credibility I find Kavanaugh far more believable. For one, none of his witnesses are claiming intimidation. Two, he has no ulterior motives. Three, there is nothing but anyone's word that he has done anything wrong, so I have no reason to doubt him at this point in the first place. So far, Kavanaugh has come out of this looking less shady than everyone else, to any fair eye.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Kavanaugh's supporters have not produced any evidence that anything she said is wrong (beyond the fact that Kavanaugh has a different story). There is though at least some evidence that corroborates her basic story (timing and location of the party in the calendar, past statements by the only other witness and her own past statements).
This is entirely backwards. Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything Ford says it wrong. Ford has to prove what she says is right. "Not being proven wrong" isn't sufficient to draw conclusions, or even inferences. The deck is stacked highly against anyone in the position of having to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
In relation to this bit of your post, I'm not sure why it looks bad. Kavanaugh has a history in relation to Roe vs Wade and it would be no surprise if Ford was aware of that. If she supports the existing interpretation of the case - and knew Kavanaugh does not - that would provide some additional motivation for her to come forward. It always seemed a bit of a surprise to me that she was willing to put herself into such a high profile and controversial position. If she feels strongly about abortion, that just provides a bit more explanation for why she did so.
Come now, it should be fairly clear what the problem is with having your motivation to make claims against someone is so you can achieve political objectives. Even the journalists can see it. Those political objectives would still exist, and this method would still serve those political objectives, whether or not any actual event occurred. This is equally motivating for a false report as it is for a real one, not so if your motivation is something more pure, like "I want justice for what was done to me."
All in all I just find your analysis of Ford far too generous to the point of ignoring the various elephants in the room. Your analysis of Kavanaugh is just fine though.
As has been said a number of times, the Committee hearings were not a legal case and I don't think 'innocent until proven guilty' is the appropriate standard. Kavanaugh was absolutely required to respond to the allegations against him - and of course he did so. It was in fact the way he responded which so convinced me that he was unfit to serve as a judge. I dislike liars in any public position (as you know that's a major reason I'm so against Trump), but that seems a particularly bad trait to have in a judge. His public statement that he would seek revenge in the future didn't inspire confidence about his impartiality either of course, though I would be more willing to put that down to a momentary emotional overload.
I agree Kavanaugh has no need for an ulterior motive - that's because he has an extremely obvious overt motive (to become a Supreme Court judge). It's Ford where there's a need to search beyond the obvious to find some reason why she might have put herself in a position to potentially end her career (she's not done any teaching since her testimony) and be subjected to threats (she's moved 4 times and hired private security). You may believe that her political motivation provides that and I agree that could motivate a false allegation as well as a true one. However, possessing political views should not be characterized as unusual or suspicious. Many people have political convictions - as Kavanaugh himself obviously does - but I don't see those as likely to prompt this type of allegation by someone with no history of attention-seeking behavior.
My personal view of the alleged assault is that something happened. It's possible that Kavanaugh was so drunk that he doesn't remember that, but I think it's much more likely that he's just lying. It is entirely possible though that from his point of view nothing serious happened - he just tried to have a bit of fun and kiss a girl. She was though younger & more strait-laced and is likely to have interpreted the event much more seriously than Kavanaugh. I do accept though that her political leanings (and specific dislike of Trump) are likely to have led her to exaggerate the importance of what happened.
As I said though, I think the alleged assault is not any longer, per se, the main issue for me. If Kavanaugh had just said he didn't remember the event, but apologized if anything he had said or done had been misinterpreted by Ford I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that people who drink to excess or attend rather wild parties in their youth should be barred from serving as a judge in later life. I do think though that people who, in later life, are willing to lie so baldly about past events should be so barred.
So even if you give zero credibility to any right wing source, that's two mainstream sources of generally left wing persuasion confirming the story. The witness for Ford is not only recanting but claiming she was pressured into it.
I agree with you that most people do not lie on the stand, but that applies as much to witnesses as the accused. Given that the stories told by Kavanaugh and Ford are irreconcilable, either someone is lying or their memories are worse than mine. It seems to me it's clear who we should believe:
If this is a test in credibility I find Kavanaugh far more believable. For one, none of his witnesses are claiming intimidation. Two, he has no ulterior motives. Three, there is nothing but anyone's word that he has done anything wrong, so I have no reason to doubt him at this point in the first place. So far, Kavanaugh has come out of this looking less shady than everyone else, to any fair eye.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Kavanaugh's supporters have not produced any evidence that anything she said is wrong (beyond the fact that Kavanaugh has a different story). There is though at least some evidence that corroborates her basic story (timing and location of the party in the calendar, past statements by the only other witness and her own past statements).
This is entirely backwards. Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything Ford says it wrong. Ford has to prove what she says is right. "Not being proven wrong" isn't sufficient to draw conclusions, or even inferences. The deck is stacked highly against anyone in the position of having to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
In relation to this bit of your post, I'm not sure why it looks bad. Kavanaugh has a history in relation to Roe vs Wade and it would be no surprise if Ford was aware of that. If she supports the existing interpretation of the case - and knew Kavanaugh does not - that would provide some additional motivation for her to come forward. It always seemed a bit of a surprise to me that she was willing to put herself into such a high profile and controversial position. If she feels strongly about abortion, that just provides a bit more explanation for why she did so.
Come now, it should be fairly clear what the problem is with having your motivation to make claims against someone is so you can achieve political objectives. Even the journalists can see it. Those political objectives would still exist, and this method would still serve those political objectives, whether or not any actual event occurred. This is equally motivating for a false report as it is for a real one, not so if your motivation is something more pure, like "I want justice for what was done to me."
All in all I just find your analysis of Ford far too generous to the point of ignoring the various elephants in the room. Your analysis of Kavanaugh is just fine though.
As has been said a number of times, the Committee hearings were not a legal case and I don't think 'innocent until proven guilty' is the appropriate standard. Kavanaugh was absolutely required to respond to the allegations against him - and of course he did so. It was in fact the way he responded which so convinced me that he was unfit to serve as a judge. I dislike liars in any public position (as you know that's a major reason I'm so against Trump), but that seems a particularly bad trait to have in a judge. His public statement that he would seek revenge in the future didn't inspire confidence about his impartiality either of course, though I would be more willing to put that down to a momentary emotional overload.
I agree Kavanaugh has no need for an ulterior motive - that's because he has an extremely obvious overt motive (to become a Supreme Court judge). It's Ford where there's a need to search beyond the obvious to find some reason why she might have put herself in a position to potentially end her career (she's not done any teaching since her testimony) and be subjected to threats (she's moved 4 times and hired private security). You may believe that her political motivation provides that and I agree that could motivate a false allegation as well as a true one. However, possessing political views should not be characterized as unusual or suspicious. Many people have political convictions - as Kavanaugh himself obviously does - but I don't see those as likely to prompt this type of allegation by someone with no history of attention-seeking behavior.
My personal view of the alleged assault is that something happened. It's possible that Kavanaugh was so drunk that he doesn't remember that, but I think it's much more likely that he's just lying. It is entirely possible though that from his point of view nothing serious happened - he just tried to have a bit of fun and kiss a girl. She was though younger & more strait-laced and is likely to have interpreted the event much more seriously than Kavanaugh. I do accept though that her political leanings (and specific dislike of Trump) are likely to have led her to exaggerate the importance of what happened.
As I said though, I think the alleged assault is not any longer, per se, the main issue for me. If Kavanaugh had just said he didn't remember the event, but apologized if anything he had said or done had been misinterpreted by Ford I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that people who drink to excess or attend rather wild parties in their youth should be barred from serving as a judge in later life. I do think though that people who, in later life, are willing to lie so baldly about past events should be so barred.
This all comes back to what I said a few posts ago, and what I thought you had said you agreed with- there is little reason, if any, for an innocent person to lie. If Ford's accusations are so lacking in credibility at this point that they are no longer even relevant issues, I see little reason to assume malice on Kavanaugh's part, and find a number of convincing reasons why he would not remember details clearly, misinterpret something, etc. Basically, barring proof of intent, I think innocent people should be given the benefit of the doubt.
What a trap Kavanaugh is in. A victim of an increasingly obvious smear campaign, where half the country was turned against him, he clears his name with the intelligence agencies, only for nobody to believe him anyway that didn't already, and even if he had 100% certain proof of his own innocence, if he doesn't prove 100% he didn't lie or at least did not intend to, everyone who already hated him will have their opinions virtually unchanged. He will have to essentially clear himself from an endless barrage of unproven allegations of his bad character, and nothing will ever be enough. No matter how many bad actors reveal themselves in this saga, it will mean nothing.
But, frankly, I just don't see how your views of the alleged assault hold up in light of recent events. Either the witness was pressured, or she is lying. If she is lying now, why should we believe her then? If she's not lying, that sparks a lot more questions.
It's simply not true that Kavanaugh was ever cleared, or even actually investigated. The FBI investigation was handed over to old friends of Kavanaugh's, limited to a single week, and failed to even interview multiple witnesses. It was deliberately restricted in scope, duration, and it was run by Kavanaugh's allies. I have seen no arguments to explain why any of those three things was defensible.
And again, if the Democratic party was willing to fabricate allegations to derail a Supreme Court nomination, they would have done so with Neil Gorsuch, and they did not. I have seen no arguments to explain this away.
Ford's account was already documented years before Kavanaugh's nomination. I have seen no arguments to explain why a supposedly made-up accusation existed long before the nomination.
Kavanaugh lied about the meaning of multiple parts of his yearbook--the obvious motive being to support his claim that he was a virgin in high school, which he clearly said to support his claim that he was innocent. I have seen no evidence that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game or that boofing meant flatulence in Kavanaugh's time--and if you wanted to search for that evidence, you'd have decades of written material across the country to search through. It's not like Kavanaugh went to school before the advent of writing; slang turns up in the historical record.
If Kavanaugh was innocent of any wrongdoing and this was all just a political ploy, then (1) the FBI investigation would not have been sabotaged, (2) Neil Gorsuch would have experienced the same accusations, (3) Ford's account would not have already been documented, and (4) there would have been at least some shred of evidence that Devil's Triangle meant a drinking game instead of a threesome, at least once in the past 40+ years, somewhere in the entire country. All of these things would be true, if Kavanaugh was truly innocent. None of them are true. And I'm not sure that list is even complete.
And I haven't seen anyone even attempt to offer an alternative explanation for any of these things, much less all of them.
- Kavanaugh made numerous statements inconsistent with the evidence. I haven't gone back to the story to refresh my failing memory, but just off the top of my head those included:
# the definitions of the terms in the yearbook you've already mentioned.
# his insistence he never went to parties during the week (contradicted by the calendar he submitted into evidence).
# his statement of the relative positions of his and Kavanaugh's house (intended to cast doubt on whether she would actually have attended the relevant party).
# the extent of his drinking.
# whether or not he knew about potential allegations of sexual assault prior to those becoming public.
Just to add on to this list, for me. Kavanaugh made a bunch of absurd conspiracy-theory level partisan accusations during the hearing. Which not only spoke to his poor credibility on the Ford issue, but just screamed of being someone subsumed in partisan media in terms of how they get their news of the day. It struck me as someone completely unfit to be a judge at any kind of federal level.
Kavanaugh said the whole thing was a partisan attack by the DNC and "the Clintons." He provided no evidence of some bizarre conspiracy; he just made it up. I do think that gives some insight into his mindset.
Comments
Correct me if i an wrong, but Trump was not anti interventionism on middle east in the past?
He made all kinds of claims and has done the opposite. 'Drain the swamp' was another and he's packed his administration with corrupt insiders and lobbyists.
Why do we have to defend Saudi Arabia's oil at all? What happened to "America First". It's not our problem. They are 3rd in military spending iirc.
15 of the 19 Sept 11th 2001 attackers were from Saudi they can protect their own oil.
They weren't right about anything, and still aren't. But it does say quite a bit about them that they are willing to publish the unverified rumors that not even the alleged victim claims to remember, so long as somebody somewhere will say it happened, and treat that as absolute fact.
I'm amazed that they didn't just take the loss, but actually doubled down on their nonsense.
It's also probably the case that her denying it and not wanting to be interviewed probably had something to do with the FBI clearing it.
I'm super sympathetic to the argument being made here, but one key interest being protected is keeping the price of oil low. It's a not a smart long-term interest, imo, because of climate change. But it's undoubtedly the case that disruptions to output will increase cost and make life a little bit tougher for consumers of oil. This has been one of the big factors in why the US has such a strong alliance with Saudi Arabia. Not that we need their oil, but rather that the world economy is very much dependent on its flow.
Is something unverified if the FBI is not allowed to verify it? There's a difference between investigating something and clearing it and just ignoring it. Yes both are technically "unverified" but the meaning is vastly different.
Brett Kavanaugh lied. He lied and perjured himself on the stand about everything from the devil's triangle being a drinking game to not watching Blassey-Ford's testimony and then describing it in detail. He acted like a mad clown with the crying and ranting about the Clintons. Several women and several dozen witnesses were prepared to testify to the FBI about their experiences with him sexually harrassing women but Republicans and the injustice department successfully limited the scope to where they didn't even interview Kavanaugh or Blassey Ford much less most of the other credible allegations.
None of this mattered to the conservatives, they are ok with liars, rapists, con men and pedophiles as long as they are on their side. Trump, Kavanaugh and Roy Moore are good examples of those qualities that conservatives "proudly" cast votes for.
Sources: The US has assessed that the attack on Saudi oil facilities originated inside Iran
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/saudi-oil-attack-dle-intl/h_089f417709bf5fab124c35eda64efb9e
Yemen's Houthi rebels said they're responsible for the attacks, but US officials are ignoring that and trying to blame Iran because they don't like Iran. At any rate, it's not our problem.
Hmm... in many ways we're all complicit in this. It's important to note that the price of oil creates a ripple effect throughout the economy. We're very lucky in a way to have not lived thru a serious oil crisis since 1979. But important to note that even in 1979, output only decreased by about 4%, but the price of crude oil doubled in the period. There's some other issues at play such as the finance industry's influence on pricing. There is a legitimate security interest in preserving stability in Saudi extraction. Not just for the US, but for its allies in Europe.
I'm not advocating for war or anything like it here, so don't mistake me. But we shouldn't underestimate how much of the US's current economy *depends* on low oil prices, and the global economy as well. And that's a serious problem that needs to be overcome. Obviously it's a terrible reality to be in, but it's one that we continue to entrench ourselves in when we build communities, lifestyles and economies that rely on extracting hydrocarbons.
Ok so the economy depends on oil prices, so what does a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, which is another country and has their own military, have to do with us?
Why even does it demand a military response at all? It demands that Saudi should step up their own security that's it.
In my opinion, obviously it doesn't warrant US response, not yet anyways. But I don't think this is a straightforward question. Just as Syria's civil war has created some issues with our European allies with massive immigration, so too would a war between SA and Iran, only on a much grander scale. I think people underestimate how much of the economic well-being that we enjoy in well off countries depends on global stability. And the people hurt the worst by a shock to that stability won't be the wealthy, it will be people who struggle to pay their bills.
Of course the FBI is *allowed* to verify it. My point was, if she denies any memory of it, and doesn't want to be interviewed about it, what is the FBI supposed to do? No victim, no convincing evidence otherwise, no crime. This is ultimately even less credible than Ford, even after it was stated by her lawyer her motivation to come forward was to protect abortion law*, because at least she can claim some memory, and wants to cooperate.
At the end of the day, I find it hard to believe someone is lying on the stand, barring evidence, unless they are found guilty of the underlying crime. There is no reason to do so, so I assume bad memory at worst. Especially about events a few decades prior. Just basic Occam's Razor here, it makes no sense and is not necessary to add malice to the equation, and in fact it confuses things more than clarifies. But really I just don't care whether or not he was honest or not about watching Ford's testimony- unproven- or the names of things from so long ago- unproven- or what have you. It's not even a crime to lie about irrelevant details, even on the stand, even intentionally. I care about the accusations, is he or is he not guilty of what he is accused of? This game reminds me of the Mueller Saga, where after years of a consistent stream of claims were proven false his detractors latched onto any minor infractions during the process that may or may not have occurred, and treat this as a retroactive excuse to do everything they wanted to do on the basis of the accusations anyway. If he went on the stand and said nothing but curses, i'd respect him even more. There should be no respect given to show trials and perversions of justice.
* Here's the video of that. Even the Washington Post knows it looks bad.
It cannot possibly be bad memory that made Kavanaugh lie about the meaning of Devil's Triangle and boofing, his virginity lasting through high school, and his drinking history. You don't forget when you lost your virginity. You don't forget the meaning of slang terms for threesomes and anal sex when they were significant enough to put in your yearbook. And if you're a remotely honest human being, you don't lie to Congress just to increase your chances of gaining the most powerful judicial seat in the country.
That is his motive for lying. His perjury earned him lifelong job security and a massive gain in political power.
Actually, he would have gotten the job if he had simply admitted to all of it or just played dumb about it. Nothing would have changed. He lied about it because that behavior gave more creedence to the claims, because it was all enveloped in this overarching frat boy culture where women were objects to be used at the whim of these boys who knew they were being groomed to be future masters of the universe. He lied because he could. Lying about it and getting away with it is half the point on the right. It's a power move, where both they and the people who opppose them both know the score, and they relish in the fact that they know they are untouchable.
Also, the bad memory defense is horseshit. Apparently, he had vivid memories of himself studying or lifting weights in the same time-frame, but magically had a complete blackout in the part of his brain that dealt with the yearbook quotes. And let's not even get into or rehash that Kavanaugh allies were running oppo research on his accusers before they were even publically revealed, which means SOMEONE told them who to dig up dirt on in advance. Lucky guess I suppose.
Moreover, it is true that the EXTRA allegation we didn't know of at the time is flimsy. That is not the crux of the article. The point is that there are witnesses who heard about the Deborah Ramirez case at the time, LONG before Kavanaugh was ever a judge, much less a Supreme Court nominee.
So let's break down the score: Ford tells her therapist years before the nomination about the incident. At least 7 people admit to having knowledge of the Ramirez incident at the time. And the right-wing machine somehow magically knows EXACTLY who the women are who are going to come forward before their names appear in any news stories. This must be another one of those situations where the Democrats are using their secret time-machine to manipulate the narrative. One wonders why they don't just go back and stop Bill Clinton from ever meeting Monica Lewinsky or tell Hillary not to use her private email with this awesome contraption. They seem to have only used it to frame Brett Kavanaugh. Seems like an awfully stupid allocation of a resources.
Trump is once again going to his old playbook, telling Kavanaugh he should sue for libel. I agree. Kavanaugh should sue for libel. And then he can be deposed and lie under oath again. That'll happen the moment Trump sues his accusers, which, I'll remind everyone for the dozenth time, he promised he would do and never did for the exact same reason. I mean, come on boys. Your names have been dragged through the mud and besmirched beyond repair. Grow some balls and step up to the plate. Sue your accusers and the press. I triple-dog dare you.
I agree with you that most people do not lie on the stand, but that applies as much to witnesses as the accused. Given that the stories told by Kavanaugh and Ford are irreconcilable, either someone is lying or their memories are worse than mine. It seems to me it's clear who we should believe:
- even Trump described Ford as a credible witness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I'm aware Kavanaugh's supporters have not produced any evidence that anything she said is wrong (beyond the fact that Kavanaugh has a different story). There is though at least some evidence that corroborates her basic story (timing and location of the party in the calendar, past statements by the only other witness and her own past statements).
- Kavanaugh made numerous statements inconsistent with the evidence. I haven't gone back to the story to refresh my failing memory, but just off the top of my head those included:
# the definitions of the terms in the yearbook you've already mentioned.
# his insistence he never went to parties during the week (contradicted by the calendar he submitted into evidence).
# his statement of the relative positions of his and Kavanaugh's house (intended to cast doubt on whether she would actually have attended the relevant party).
# the extent of his drinking.
# whether or not he knew about potential allegations of sexual assault prior to those becoming public.
Using Occam's Razor it seems straightforward to me who to believe on the fact of whether an assault occurred. You could also apply the Razor in terms of motivation to lie. Is it more likely that Ford would lie, given she had no history of attention-seeking behavior and knew how much testifying was going to disrupt her existing life? Or is it more likely that Kavanaugh would lie in order to get a huge step up in power and prestige - things which his past life and career shows he valued?
The thing I disagree with most about your position though, is the idea that lying about 'irrelevant details' is itself irrelevant when being considered for a position as a Supreme Court judge. It would seem to me that regard for the truth is extremely pertinent for a judge and in my view Kavanaugh's propensity to lie would alone make him unsuitable to be a Supreme Court judge - even if the assault on Ford never took place.
In relation to this bit of your post, I'm not sure why it looks bad. Kavanaugh has a history in relation to Roe vs Wade and it would be no surprise if Ford was aware of that. If she supports the existing interpretation of the case - and knew Kavanaugh does not - that would provide some additional motivation for her to come forward. It always seemed a bit of a surprise to me that she was willing to put herself into such a high profile and controversial position. If she feels strongly about abortion, that just provides a bit more explanation for why she did so.
This was posted by CBS just an hour ago, far from being right wing lunatics, and I felt it was a necessary addition to this.
Suspect motivations, victims who know nothing, witnesses who aren't witnesses. It shows why it is so incredibly important to stick to the philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, even if it isn't the natural partisan reflex. Verify, not trust.
The Washington Examiner as a source? Seriously?
I guess she's not "Left" enough. Shame.
Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. This wasn't a criminal case. This was a hearing to select one person out of 323 million to fill one of nine lifetime appointment seats.
There should have been less controversial candidates the president could have put up for nomination. This stuff did not happen to Neil Gorsuch, the actual 'stolen' SCOTUS seat, so the 'this is all partisan' stuff does not fly.
In a lot of people's opinions, he was not verified properly and why he was chosen (with all the baggage such as loans being paid off for him) was never really answered.
Could have, but didn't for two reasons. The first being that they didn't have to, but the second is far, far more important. At this point the GOP doesn't just excuse sexual assault, they seem to be actively in favor of it to keep women in their place.
I'd like to think that my youth was the same as the overwhelming majority of men, who certainly did stupid things, but sexual assault was not one of them. There were dozens of girls I was acquaintances with who as an adolescent I would have had interest in sleeping with. Never did anything in the same solar system as what Kavanaugh was accused of multiple times. Neither did anyone I knew in high school. I can pretty much guarantee my friends and I drank as much as Kavanaugh did. So, again, I'd like to believe this is not normal behavior. But the GOP's tactic on this has been to convince a certain segment of men that it IS normal, and just "part of growing up", or it was way more prevalent than I realized. But I assure you, it is 100% possible to drink to excess on a near weekly basis, be sexually attracted to any number of women at a party, and also not whip out your dick and wave it around like a magic wand. And those are just the minor allegations.
The fact is, it wouldn't matter a single ounce if there was video tape of what Kavanaugh did to Ford or what Trump did to Jean Carroll. The vast majority of the GOP and conservative voters would simply not care. They don't view it as important in any way. Sexual assault has become something that women "whine" about and should just suck up and take as a normal part of American life. We see this in everything from the sentences handed down to young rich kids who are actually CONVICTED of rape to the attitude of parents who try silence their own daughters when they bring forth these stories. This is what the much derided term (at least on the alt-right) "rape culture" means. It's a society where the stigma of coming forward will make you as a VICTIM the pariah, and if you do come forward, the standard of proof you have to meet to be believed (at least in terms of a person of power) means you better have at least 3 or 4 DOZEN other women willing to come forward with you like in the case of Bill Cosby. And even then, a certain segment of the population is STILL going to think ALL of those women are making it up.
Yes, and the NYT confirmed they got the same info from the same witness.
So even if you give zero credibility to any right wing source, that's two mainstream sources of generally left wing persuasion confirming the story. The witness for Ford is not only recanting but claiming she was pressured into it.
If this is a test in credibility I find Kavanaugh far more believable. For one, none of his witnesses are claiming intimidation. Two, he has no ulterior motives. Three, there is nothing but anyone's word that he has done anything wrong, so I have no reason to doubt him at this point in the first place. So far, Kavanaugh has come out of this looking less shady than everyone else, to any fair eye.
This is entirely backwards. Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything Ford says it wrong. Ford has to prove what she says is right. "Not being proven wrong" isn't sufficient to draw conclusions, or even inferences. The deck is stacked highly against anyone in the position of having to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
Come now, it should be fairly clear what the problem is with having your motivation to make claims against someone is so you can achieve political objectives. Even the journalists can see it. Those political objectives would still exist, and this method would still serve those political objectives, whether or not any actual event occurred. This is equally motivating for a false report as it is for a real one, not so if your motivation is something more pure, like "I want justice for what was done to me."
All in all I just find your analysis of Ford far too generous to the point of ignoring the various elephants in the room. Your analysis of Kavanaugh is just fine though.
Any fair eye would not reach these conclusions. He has shown himself to be deceptive and multiple people and witnesses have described predatory behavior. Kavanaugh's ulterior motive is he wanted to get the job security and the top job in his field, obviously. If he had not been confirmed his career would be over.
Dr. Ford has not changed her story - a "close friend" has and then given her opinion of Ford's story to the Washington Examiner which has zero credibility. While this 'friend' has repeated her opinion elsewhere the first place she went to is a partisan hack 'news' rag that spins every story. This is suspect.
This friend doesn't change that Doctor Ford and others have given their stories to therapists, told others about Kavanaugh's despicable behavior years earlier. Why did this friend feed this story now? I'll speculate that she did it because she is a right winger, she's drank the koolaid. She is giving her perhaps honest interpretation of what's going on - but I'll bet she's not "close friends" with Ford anymore and she's saying what she wants to say and it has led people that are pre-disposed to wanting to dismiss the whole thing to do so exactly as you have.
About proof - there is nothing but anyone's word as far as we know. But there is proof that Kavanaugh is a liar and temperamentally unhinged He lied about sex words and he lied about things on his calendar that he himself brought into evidence. His shameless unhinged rants alone are proof that he should not be managing a taco Bell much less a Supreme Court Justice.
The fact is the Justice Department's FBI did a sham investigation. Multiple witnesses described how they reached out and where denied a voice. Major allegations were not investigated. Ford nor Kavanaugh were interviewed. Why not get Kavanaugh to tell his story - if he's not lying he should not mind talking to the FBI. Also, Kavanaugh's entire record of his work during the GW Bush years were hidden, why?
All this leads to the undeniable conclusion that the Supreme Court is illegitimate first with denying Merrick Garland a vote, and second with Kavanaugh who is unhinged, has a history of sexual assault, has a history of alcoholism, and is a partisan hack and a liar.
As has been said a number of times, the Committee hearings were not a legal case and I don't think 'innocent until proven guilty' is the appropriate standard. Kavanaugh was absolutely required to respond to the allegations against him - and of course he did so. It was in fact the way he responded which so convinced me that he was unfit to serve as a judge. I dislike liars in any public position (as you know that's a major reason I'm so against Trump), but that seems a particularly bad trait to have in a judge. His public statement that he would seek revenge in the future didn't inspire confidence about his impartiality either of course, though I would be more willing to put that down to a momentary emotional overload.
I agree Kavanaugh has no need for an ulterior motive - that's because he has an extremely obvious overt motive (to become a Supreme Court judge). It's Ford where there's a need to search beyond the obvious to find some reason why she might have put herself in a position to potentially end her career (she's not done any teaching since her testimony) and be subjected to threats (she's moved 4 times and hired private security). You may believe that her political motivation provides that and I agree that could motivate a false allegation as well as a true one. However, possessing political views should not be characterized as unusual or suspicious. Many people have political convictions - as Kavanaugh himself obviously does - but I don't see those as likely to prompt this type of allegation by someone with no history of attention-seeking behavior.
My personal view of the alleged assault is that something happened. It's possible that Kavanaugh was so drunk that he doesn't remember that, but I think it's much more likely that he's just lying. It is entirely possible though that from his point of view nothing serious happened - he just tried to have a bit of fun and kiss a girl. She was though younger & more strait-laced and is likely to have interpreted the event much more seriously than Kavanaugh. I do accept though that her political leanings (and specific dislike of Trump) are likely to have led her to exaggerate the importance of what happened.
As I said though, I think the alleged assault is not any longer, per se, the main issue for me. If Kavanaugh had just said he didn't remember the event, but apologized if anything he had said or done had been misinterpreted by Ford I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that people who drink to excess or attend rather wild parties in their youth should be barred from serving as a judge in later life. I do think though that people who, in later life, are willing to lie so baldly about past events should be so barred.
This all comes back to what I said a few posts ago, and what I thought you had said you agreed with- there is little reason, if any, for an innocent person to lie. If Ford's accusations are so lacking in credibility at this point that they are no longer even relevant issues, I see little reason to assume malice on Kavanaugh's part, and find a number of convincing reasons why he would not remember details clearly, misinterpret something, etc. Basically, barring proof of intent, I think innocent people should be given the benefit of the doubt.
What a trap Kavanaugh is in. A victim of an increasingly obvious smear campaign, where half the country was turned against him, he clears his name with the intelligence agencies, only for nobody to believe him anyway that didn't already, and even if he had 100% certain proof of his own innocence, if he doesn't prove 100% he didn't lie or at least did not intend to, everyone who already hated him will have their opinions virtually unchanged. He will have to essentially clear himself from an endless barrage of unproven allegations of his bad character, and nothing will ever be enough. No matter how many bad actors reveal themselves in this saga, it will mean nothing.
But, frankly, I just don't see how your views of the alleged assault hold up in light of recent events. Either the witness was pressured, or she is lying. If she is lying now, why should we believe her then? If she's not lying, that sparks a lot more questions.
And again, if the Democratic party was willing to fabricate allegations to derail a Supreme Court nomination, they would have done so with Neil Gorsuch, and they did not. I have seen no arguments to explain this away.
Ford's account was already documented years before Kavanaugh's nomination. I have seen no arguments to explain why a supposedly made-up accusation existed long before the nomination.
Kavanaugh lied about the meaning of multiple parts of his yearbook--the obvious motive being to support his claim that he was a virgin in high school, which he clearly said to support his claim that he was innocent. I have seen no evidence that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game or that boofing meant flatulence in Kavanaugh's time--and if you wanted to search for that evidence, you'd have decades of written material across the country to search through. It's not like Kavanaugh went to school before the advent of writing; slang turns up in the historical record.
If Kavanaugh was innocent of any wrongdoing and this was all just a political ploy, then (1) the FBI investigation would not have been sabotaged, (2) Neil Gorsuch would have experienced the same accusations, (3) Ford's account would not have already been documented, and (4) there would have been at least some shred of evidence that Devil's Triangle meant a drinking game instead of a threesome, at least once in the past 40+ years, somewhere in the entire country. All of these things would be true, if Kavanaugh was truly innocent. None of them are true. And I'm not sure that list is even complete.
And I haven't seen anyone even attempt to offer an alternative explanation for any of these things, much less all of them.
Just to add on to this list, for me. Kavanaugh made a bunch of absurd conspiracy-theory level partisan accusations during the hearing. Which not only spoke to his poor credibility on the Ford issue, but just screamed of being someone subsumed in partisan media in terms of how they get their news of the day. It struck me as someone completely unfit to be a judge at any kind of federal level.