The thing that I found very odd about the original accusation against Kavanaugh was that it appeared to be for some time the only one. The accusation itself seemed very credible, but of a type that would certainly suggest a pattern of behavior and not a one-off incident. If it genuinely were a one-off incident of a man getting drunk and behaving in a way contrary to his normal behavior without understanding the consequences of that I would potentially find that forgivable. However, Kavanaugh's stance on this has been that it didn't happen, so there's no question of forgiving him for something regrettable done in his youth. Instead the issue is whether: a) the incident was made up, or b) the incident was true and Kavanaugh is lying about it and prepared to inflict significant further harm on someone he's already wronged. If this is the case then I really would find it hard to understand how anyone could support him for a lifetime position on America's most important court.
As I suggested above, what Prof Ford said seemed credible in itself, but I found it hard to accept that an incident reflecting an overwhelming sense of entitlement and a view that women are not real people would be a one-off. It now seems though that a more general pattern of behavior is emerging and one that - in the MeToo era - is going to be very difficult to defend.
Again, I don't think Kav should be confirmed because he's pro-corporate, anti-people.
And the lengths that Republicans have gone to hide his record is beyond troubling.
I'd hate for Republicans to wave them aside the allegations and say "well we don't think he raped too many girls and if he did it was a long time ago. He hasn't raped anyone lately and besides what boy doesn't do that?" Then they confirm him rather than focusing on disqualifying him on his record and horrendous views.
@smeagolheart I should share the "GOP Rape Advisory Chart" here. It's great for losing weight. Read more than a few of these and it will make you sick enough to not want to eat again... ever.
This is of course due to the highly misleading NY Times article in which they said Rosenstein thought about taping the President. What all other news organizations reported was that he made a sarcastic remark in the vein of "what do you want me to do, bug the President??" when someone expressed concern about Trump's behavior. I am 95% sure someone in the Administration was the sourcing for this story and was planted there to force Rosenstein out. Much like with Judy Miller being a stenographer for Dick Cheney's office in the lead-up to Iraq, reporters like Maggie Habberman and Michael Schmidt are constantly being used to weave media narratives. Liberal media my ass.
The wheels are falling off our system of government and it's all been brought to you by ONE party. There are no depths or moves they won't sink to. This does not end well, which I've only been saying for the past 18+ months.
It's not going to magically happen. If you care about the issue, create a protest event locally.
I know what I'm going to do, I'm wondering how many others give a darn about the rule of law, the Constitution, and separation of powers. Democracy, you know. It's in trouble...
So it looks like Thursday is going to be a busy media outing.
Rosenstien is going to have a meeting with Trump on the same day as the Kavanaugh/Ford testimonies. If Kavanaugh goes, so does Rosenstien. It’s as if he is being held hostage until Kavanaugh gets approved.
I just saw a report about how Trump cannot replace Rosenstein if he fires him. To do so, Rosenstein must resign. And Rosenberg is saying that he is *not* resigning, that if Trump wants him gone, Trump will have to fire him.
I just saw a report about how Trump cannot replace Rosenstein if he fires him. To do so, Rosenstein must resign. And Rosenberg is saying that he is *not* resigning, that if Trump wants him gone, Trump will have to fire him.
I don't generally read Daily Kos, so I can't speak to its left/right leaning status.
It is perhaps the premier left-leaning blog, has been since the darkest days of the Bush Administration. In the media cheerleading over Iraq, that website and others like it were the only refuge for opponents of the war, and for many of us, it's where our politics took formation.
Should Rosenstein be fired the investigation falls to Solicitor General Noel Francisco.
In 2016, Francisco wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he attacked then FBI director James Comey and complained about both the “kid glove treatment” of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server and decried the “heavy handed” tactics taken toward Republicans. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-treated-clinton-with-kid-gloves-1475709394
So he sounds like a typical whining Republican "yes man". Since that op-ed he's towed Trumps line about how both the FBI and other intelligence agencies are too soft on Democrats, too hard on Republicans. Because what good is the Justice Department if you can't use it as a political tool against your enemies, right?
Francisco has said he supported Trump’s ability to fire Comey without cause and has issued statements showing he supports Trump’s ability to fire both Rosenstein and Robert Mueller.
As Law and Crime reported on Sunday, Francisco is “a movement conservative through and through.” He’s an absolute partisan who was a clerk for Scalia before joining the Bush team to fight against the Florida recount that eventually stole the 2000 Presidential Election from Al Gore.
That’s who will now have charge of legal decisions of the current constitutional crisis—the guy who worked to get us here by ensuring the last great constitutional crisis.
An overview of the Vacancies Act from the Congressional Research Service written only a few months ago. Be warned--it is a little dry, as most legal research papers are. The law definitely does not address the situation when someone is fired, but the most likely scenario would be that Trump could appoint someone temporarily, which would be legal. That being said, I don't think Rosenstein will be fired--that would too chaotic with elections only about 6 weeks away.
Public hearings in relation to confirmations of people nominated to "advice and consent" positions are a convenience, a shiny little gift the Senate gives the public. The Constitution does not require those hearings to be open to the public, only that they give "advice and consent", which means they give an up-or-down vote to approve the nominee. Check out Article II Section 2 paragraph 2. Incidentally, Kavanaugh's confirmation vote in the Senate back in 2006 may be found here on the Senate's website--you are welcome.
The website @smeagolheart cites will encourage some people into action, should any of those events occur. The vast majority of most people, though, won't do anything about it because they will be too concerned living their day-to-day lives--work, school, doctor's visits, etc--to take to the streets.
The website @smeagolheart cites will encourage some people into action, should any of those events occur. The vast majority of most people, though, won't do anything about it because they will be too concerned living their day-to-day lives--work, school, doctor's visits, etc--to take to the streets.
I think you're completely wrong here. If Rosenstein is fired, it'll be akin to kicking as hornet's nest.
Would you say the Woman's Day march in 2017 was small? IIRC, 5ish million people participated. This would probably be bigger. Maybe twice as large.
If 2 to 3 percent of the entire US population protested, it'd end up being the largest such protest in US history that I'm aware of. Hardly small potatoes.
The website @smeagolheart cites will encourage some people into action, should any of those events occur. The vast majority of most people, though, won't do anything about it because they will be too concerned living their day-to-day lives--work, school, doctor's visits, etc--to take to the streets.
I think you're completely wrong here. If Rosenstein is fired, it'll be akin to kicking as hornet's nest.
Would you say the Woman's Day march in 2017 was small? IIRC, 5ish million people participated. This would probably be bigger. Maybe twice as large.
If 2 to 3 percent of the entire US population protested, it'd end up being the largest such protest in US history that I'm aware of. Hardly small potatoes.
And Trump will give the same amount of fucks now that he did then: zero. He will let it blow over because what can anyone do? The best way to protest is at the ballot box and replace every R with a D.
And Trump will give the same amount of fucks now that he did then: zero. He will let it blow over because what can anyone do? The best way to protest is at the ballot box and replace every R with a D.
I agree - but almost every single person out marching will vote against the the Republicans. I can bet you that there will be politicians on site trying to get as many of those people out to vote as possible in November. I bet they'll have booths to get people registered to vote, too.
So far, the Democrats havent made the midterms about Russia. If Trump does something crazy, it'll be unavoidable. More people like Mueller than Trump. More people believe he should be investigated than the investigation should end. This only benefits the D's chances in November.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s fraternity at Yale has long been notorious for disrespecting women including while he was a member. They were recently disbanded I believe in like 2014 or something after shouting/chanting outside a women's sorority "No means yes. Yes means anal."
1. A whole bunch of boys (dozen+) declare themselves "alumni" of a single girl. 2. A fellow student says he was disgusted by them at LEAST verbally disrespecting her. 2. Kavanaugh's spokesperson says he kissed her. 3. Renate denies being kissed. 4. Renate is one of the 65+ women who signed the letter attesting to his character despite all the verbal abuse in high school.
"Critics have said that Mr. Francisco cannot oversee the Russia investigation without a waiver from the White House because his former law firm, Jones Day, is representing the Trump campaign in the inquiry, creating a conflict of interest. Justice Department officials have not addressed whether a waiver would be needed if Mr. Rosenstein departs."
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s fraternity at Yale has long been notorious for disrespecting women including while he was a member. They were recently disbanded I believe in like 2014 or something after shouting/chanting outside a women's sorority "No means yes. Yes means anal."
1. A whole bunch of boys (dozen+) declare themselves "alumni" of a single girl. 2. A fellow student says he was disgusted by them at LEAST verbally disrespecting her. 2. Kavanaugh's spokesperson says he kissed her. 3. Renate denies being kissed. 4. Renate is one of the 65+ women who signed the letter attesting to his character despite all the verbal abuse in high school.
The stories coming out of that prep school and Yale are weird. Kavanaugh's interview on FOX tonight (where he somehow thought that declaring himself a virgin until well after high school was somehow relevant or exculpatory) was even more weird. The claims about his calendar are flat-out absurd. The entire selling of him as a great car pool dad and bringing in an adolescent girls basketball team he coached is now just plain creepy, given that we can be reasonably sure the only reason it was done was because Republicans knew this shit was coming.
Everyone coming out paints a clear picture of a bunch of entitled little pricks who thought tossing women around like livestock was their god-given right. Attempted rapes in side rooms. Shoving your exposed penis in the face of drunk girls. A bunch of acronyms and secret codes that all indicate that what was going on in this prep school and Yale was indeed (and this is a term that is always ridiculed on the alt-right, and yet here it is coming into full focus) "rape culture". I'm sorry, but this is not normal teenage behavior. It isn't normal drunken teenage behavior. It's the kind of stuff that only happens if you believe you are immune from consequences. Brett Kavanaugh has believed he has been immune from consequences his entire life. It would seem the time has come to pay the piper. I can't even begin to understand what was going on in these schools and these parties.
I was watching MSNBC today, and there was a section during one of the afternoon shows where the second accuser said, he shoved his d**k in her face, and someone called down the hall, "Brett Kavanaugh just shoved his d**k in this girl's face!" I guess she hadn't known his name until then.
@jjstraka34 Most people who go to prep schools then name-brand Ivy League schools live in a world where there really aren't consequences for one's actions.
Sadly, the second accuser is yet another woman who waited far too long to come forward with her story and Ms. Ramirez even admitted to The New Yorker that " there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening"; those gaps help cast doubt on her story even though the general events are probably true. Of course, none of these accusations were relevant--they weren't even mentioned--when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the bench back in 2006. On the other hand, that was 12 years ago and times have changed enough to make them relevant--the legacy of Harvey Weinstein.
Kavanaugh has admitted under oath that he "has never committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature". What he probably meant was that he had never been *convicted* of any of those things--at least, that is probably how he will retcon himself.
Democrats urging the Senate to reject his confirmation, though, still fit the dictionary definition of hypocrisy given their long support of Bill Clinton, a man who actually continued to commit sexual offenses against women well into his adult years, including while holding various public offices.
Would you say the Woman's Day march in 2017 was small? IIRC, 5ish million people participated. This would probably be bigger. Maybe twice as large.
If 2 to 3 percent of the entire US population protested, it'd end up being the largest such protest in US history that I'm aware of. Hardly small potatoes.
Approximate population of the United States last year: 328,594,190. Number of people who attended that march: let's overestimate and say 5,500,000. That is only 1.673% so, yes, we may consider that to be "small" from that point of view. On the other hand, that is bigger than both Los Angeles and San Diego put together--in that context the number seems quite large.
You say that 2 or 3 percent would be significant. If your pay rate were either raised or lowered by 3% would that be significant? Median income in the United States in 2016 was $31,099; 3% of that is $932.97 or $35.88 ever two weeks. Neither gaining nor losing that amount is going to make any significant change in one's financial position. If someone weighs 125 kg then they lose 3% they now weigh 121.25 kg--probably not even enough to drop a clothing size.
I am not saying that any such protests won't be significant--the amount of people protesting probably would be significant--but the vast majority of people won't be protesting, primarily because they cannot afford to leave work to go protest but also because for most people it wouldn't be a significant enough problem to go protest.
You say that 2 or 3 percent would be significant. If your pay rate were either raised or lowered by 3% would that be significant? Median income in the United States in 2016 was $31,099; 3% of that is $932.97 or $35.88 ever two weeks. Neither gaining nor losing that amount is going to make any significant change in one's financial position.
I'm guessing that you are far, far more financially secure, or far more indifferent to money, than the average American. I'm not sure what your financial situation is, but for virtually anyone in the world, losing 3% of their entire income would be devastating, and getting a 3% raise would be a huge deal.
I'm guessing that you are far, far more financially secure, or far more indifferent to money, than the average American.
I am neither of these things, unfortunately. I was merely noting that sometimes 3% can be significant--if we were 3% closer to the Sun then the planet might have been too hot to sustain life--but other times 3% is not significant--last week you were paying $2.65 for a gallon of gas but this week you are paying $2.73, which is 3% more. If I say "3% of the population is protesting" that doesn't sound like very much but if you look out your window and all you can see is a sea of 7 million people that would be astonishing.
I'm guessing that you are far, far more financially secure, or far more indifferent to money, than the average American.
I am neither of these things, unfortunately. I was merely noting that sometimes 3% can be significant--if we were 3% closer to the Sun then the planet might have been too hot to sustain life--but other times 3% is not significant--last week you were paying $2.65 for a gallon of gas but this week you are paying $2.73, which is 3% more. If I say "3% of the population is protesting" that doesn't sound like very much but if you look out your window and all you can see is a sea of 7 million people that would be astonishing.
I think you're vastly underestimating how many people 7 million is. The famous Obama inauguration crowd was only about 0.5 million.
I think you're vastly underestimating how many people 7 million is. The famous Obama inauguration crowd was only about 0.5 million.
Probably, yes...especially if they were all in one place at one time. That would be one of those "you cannot imagine it" scenarios much like Felix Baumgartner's jump from 39km or winning $100 million from a lottery. They won't all be in one place at one time, of course, but it would still be an impressive number.
Comments
a) the incident was made up, or
b) the incident was true and Kavanaugh is lying about it and prepared to inflict significant further harm on someone he's already wronged. If this is the case then I really would find it hard to understand how anyone could support him for a lifetime position on America's most important court.
As I suggested above, what Prof Ford said seemed credible in itself, but I found it hard to accept that an incident reflecting an overwhelming sense of entitlement and a view that women are not real people would be a one-off. It now seems though that a more general pattern of behavior is emerging and one that - in the MeToo era - is going to be very difficult to defend.
And the lengths that Republicans have gone to hide his record is beyond troubling.
I'd hate for Republicans to wave them aside the allegations and say "well we don't think he raped too many girls and if he did it was a long time ago. He hasn't raped anyone lately and besides what boy doesn't do that?" Then they confirm him rather than focusing on disqualifying him on his record and horrendous views.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/21/1797415/-This-seems-like-a-good-point-to-dust-off-the-GOP-Rape-Advisory-Chart-again?detail=facebook
That opens up Trump to install a toadie to further obstruct and kill the Russia investigation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/24/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-is-reportedly-resigning.html
I guess we'll see if this actually website thing happens:
NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW—MUELLER FIRING RAPID RESPONSE
https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/
The wheels are falling off our system of government and it's all been brought to you by ONE party. There are no depths or moves they won't sink to. This does not end well, which I've only been saying for the past 18+ months.
Rosenstien is going to have a meeting with Trump on the same day as the Kavanaugh/Ford testimonies. If Kavanaugh goes, so does Rosenstien. It’s as if he is being held hostage until Kavanaugh gets approved.
From Daily Kos: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/24/1798262/-If-Trump-fires-Rosenstein-he-may-not-be-able-to-replace-him
Then there is this, also from Daily Kos: Kavanaugh's female accusers have uniformly been described as not politically motivated truth tellers
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/24/1798334/-Kavanaugh-s-female-accusers-have-uniformly-been-described-as-not-politically-motivated-truth-tellers
I don't generally read Daily Kos, so I can't speak to its left/right leaning status.
Alabama Pastor Raped 9-Year-Old Girl On Father’s Grave
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/alabama-pastor-raped-9-year-old-girl-on-fathers-grave/
In 2016, Francisco wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he attacked then FBI director James Comey and complained about both the “kid glove treatment” of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server and decried the “heavy handed” tactics taken toward Republicans.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-treated-clinton-with-kid-gloves-1475709394
So he sounds like a typical whining Republican "yes man". Since that op-ed he's towed Trumps line about how both the FBI and other intelligence agencies are too soft on Democrats, too hard on Republicans. Because what good is the Justice Department if you can't use it as a political tool against your enemies, right?
Francisco has said he supported Trump’s ability to fire Comey without cause and has issued statements showing he supports Trump’s ability to fire both Rosenstein and Robert Mueller.
As Law and Crime reported on Sunday, Francisco is “a movement conservative through and through.” He’s an absolute partisan who was a clerk for Scalia before joining the Bush team to fight against the Florida recount that eventually stole the 2000 Presidential Election from Al Gore.
That’s who will now have charge of legal decisions of the current constitutional crisis—the guy who worked to get us here by ensuring the last great constitutional crisis.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/if-rosenstein-is-fired-this-is-who-will-be-in-charge-of-robert-mueller/
https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/values-voter-summiters-make-the-case-for-using-religion-to-harm-others
Public hearings in relation to confirmations of people nominated to "advice and consent" positions are a convenience, a shiny little gift the Senate gives the public. The Constitution does not require those hearings to be open to the public, only that they give "advice and consent", which means they give an up-or-down vote to approve the nominee. Check out Article II Section 2 paragraph 2. Incidentally, Kavanaugh's confirmation vote in the Senate back in 2006 may be found here on the Senate's website--you are welcome.
The website @smeagolheart cites will encourage some people into action, should any of those events occur. The vast majority of most people, though, won't do anything about it because they will be too concerned living their day-to-day lives--work, school, doctor's visits, etc--to take to the streets.
Would you say the Woman's Day march in 2017 was small? IIRC, 5ish million people participated. This would probably be bigger. Maybe twice as large.
If 2 to 3 percent of the entire US population protested, it'd end up being the largest such protest in US history that I'm aware of. Hardly small potatoes.
He will let it blow over because what can anyone do? The best way to protest is at the ballot box and replace every R with a D.
So far, the Democrats havent made the midterms about Russia. If Trump does something crazy, it'll be unavoidable. More people like Mueller than Trump. More people believe he should be investigated than the investigation should end. This only benefits the D's chances in November.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/us/politics/rod-rosenstein-justice-department-trump.html
And on Brett Kavanaugh I saw this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html
1. A whole bunch of boys (dozen+) declare themselves "alumni" of a single girl.
2. A fellow student says he was disgusted by them at LEAST verbally disrespecting her.
2. Kavanaugh's spokesperson says he kissed her.
3. Renate denies being kissed.
4. Renate is one of the 65+ women who signed the letter attesting to his character despite all the verbal abuse in high school.
Swell guy this Francisco.
Everyone coming out paints a clear picture of a bunch of entitled little pricks who thought tossing women around like livestock was their god-given right. Attempted rapes in side rooms. Shoving your exposed penis in the face of drunk girls. A bunch of acronyms and secret codes that all indicate that what was going on in this prep school and Yale was indeed (and this is a term that is always ridiculed on the alt-right, and yet here it is coming into full focus) "rape culture". I'm sorry, but this is not normal teenage behavior. It isn't normal drunken teenage behavior. It's the kind of stuff that only happens if you believe you are immune from consequences. Brett Kavanaugh has believed he has been immune from consequences his entire life. It would seem the time has come to pay the piper. I can't even begin to understand what was going on in these schools and these parties.
Sadly, the second accuser is yet another woman who waited far too long to come forward with her story and Ms. Ramirez even admitted to The New Yorker that " there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening"; those gaps help cast doubt on her story even though the general events are probably true. Of course, none of these accusations were relevant--they weren't even mentioned--when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the bench back in 2006. On the other hand, that was 12 years ago and times have changed enough to make them relevant--the legacy of Harvey Weinstein.
Kavanaugh has admitted under oath that he "has never committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature". What he probably meant was that he had never been *convicted* of any of those things--at least, that is probably how he will retcon himself.
Democrats urging the Senate to reject his confirmation, though, still fit the dictionary definition of hypocrisy given their long support of Bill Clinton, a man who actually continued to commit sexual offenses against women well into his adult years, including while holding various public offices. Approximate population of the United States last year: 328,594,190. Number of people who attended that march: let's overestimate and say 5,500,000. That is only 1.673% so, yes, we may consider that to be "small" from that point of view. On the other hand, that is bigger than both Los Angeles and San Diego put together--in that context the number seems quite large.
You say that 2 or 3 percent would be significant. If your pay rate were either raised or lowered by 3% would that be significant? Median income in the United States in 2016 was $31,099; 3% of that is $932.97 or $35.88 ever two weeks. Neither gaining nor losing that amount is going to make any significant change in one's financial position. If someone weighs 125 kg then they lose 3% they now weigh 121.25 kg--probably not even enough to drop a clothing size.
I am not saying that any such protests won't be significant--the amount of people protesting probably would be significant--but the vast majority of people won't be protesting, primarily because they cannot afford to leave work to go protest but also because for most people it wouldn't be a significant enough problem to go protest.