In any situation I'm likely to find the party that welcomes investigation of their claims more credible than the party that doesn't. In this case the claims relate to a potential appointment to the highest court in the land - I find it amazing that anyone is still considering offering this type of legal post to someone whose idea of appropriate due process is not to investigate claims.
In any situation i'm likely to find the party that has the evidence supporting them to be more credible then one who doesn't. Innocent people wrongfully convicted on practically nonexistent evidence and lots of subjective "good/bad vibes" is a thing.
As an aside, welcoming whatever the committee wants to do, including investigation, is literally what he said, but you are just dismissing it and calling him a liar in cahoots with the Republicans because he didn't say "Please investigate me, FBI" on the floor but left it up to their decision. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
You can choose to believe what your favored team says for whatever reasons you want, what you can't do is provide even a minimum standard of proof for Ford's claims, so there is no reason for anyone else to act upon them let alone take them seriously.
A complete lack of anything substantial will not stop those convinced that the smoking gun is just under the next rock, and since the investigation looks to be going forward as of right now, I guess we will see.
I'm glad Jeff Flake spoke up. The FBI is better at investigating than the Senate Committee staffers. If an investigation is done by the FBI, I'll be more comfortable with it.
Im more disturbed by the idea of "favorite teams."
Personally, my social and political beliefs can't be summed up in a single catch all buzz word framed a corrupt and self serving media and I am horrified when someones views of the world are so reductionist that they can.
I'm glad Jeff Flake spoke up. The FBI is better at investigating than the Senate Committee staffers. If an investigation is done by the FBI, I'll be more comfortable with it.
Trump has to agree to let the FBI do a background check. So color me skeptical on the prospect of that.
I'm glad Jeff Flake spoke up. The FBI is better at investigating than the Senate Committee staffers. If an investigation is done by the FBI, I'll be more comfortable with it.
Trump has to agree to let the FBI do a background check. So color me skeptical on the prospect of that.
Well then I guess he'll just have to pick another candidate.
Should be noted the only reason Flake changed his mind is that he was DIRECTLY confronted by two sexual assault survivors as he entered an elevator this morning.
@WarChiefZeke: As we've discussed, Kavanaugh's yearbook already provides documentary evidence that he committed perjury about his high school days in this very hearing. Ford's discussions with her doctor from 6 years ago already provide documentary evidence that her claims date back long before Kavanaugh ever approached a nomination--which means there is no possibility that partisan politics made these allegations up out of thin air.
We've been providing a minimum standard of proof for Ford's claims for the past 10 pages. We've cited documents from Kavanaugh's past, we've cited documents from Ford's past, we've cited sworn testimony from Kavanaugh, and we've cited sworn testimony from Ford.
Our skepticism is not based simply on Kavanaugh breaking down and losing his temper and struggling to avoid answering questions, or the lack of holes in Ford's story, or the fact that the alleged assault already fits Kavanaugh's profile like a glove. It's based on both documentary evidence (which we've discussed in detail several times) and sworn testimony (which we've discussed in detail several times).
You don't have to agree with anyone, but you can't very well tell us that we haven't cited concrete evidence multiple times over the past 10 pages, because we were there.
Okay, so the FBI gets a week to look into things. For the sake of discussion, let us presume they find new information or more instances of highly questionable and inappropriate behavior. Will they ask for more time--another week or two? Would they be able to press charges or would potential criminal charges be kicked back to the local police department with jurisdiction over the locale where the behavior occurred? What if, while conducting this investigation, they uncover a completely different matter which also requires investigation?
Now, also for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the FBI does not find any new information or instances of highly questionable or inappropriate behavior. Will that close the chapter or will people still suspect him of being guilty of something?
On a related topic, as @semiticgod notes it appears Kavanaugh may have perjured himself. Will those charges be filed or is that matter going to disappear?
I read one comment in a news article that a protester stated that she did not want someone who committed a sexual assault to be on the Supreme Court. I don't disagree, but Kavanaugh is not guilty of that--he hasn't even been charged with that as a crime. This brings me to a more general question: should *any* crime prevent someone from holding a public office, regardless of its nature? If the answer is "yes", then should we open FBI investigations into all politicians currently in office to verify that they don't have criminal skeletons in their closets? If the answer is "no", then we have to figure out which crimes disqualify someone from holding office.
No one is going to suffer for waiting a week. I bet, though, that by Tuesday some are going to start grumbling that "one week isn't long enough".
Okay, so the FBI gets a week to look into things. For the sake of discussion, let us presume they find new information or more instances of highly questionable and inappropriate behavior. Will they ask for more time--another week or two? Would they be able to press charges or would potential criminal charges be kicked back to the local police department with jurisdiction over the locale where the behavior occurred? What if, while conducting this investigation, they uncover a completely different matter which also requires investigation?
Now, also for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the FBI does not find any new information or instances of highly questionable or inappropriate behavior. Will that close the chapter or will people still suspect him of being guilty of something?
On a related topic, as @semiticgod notes it appears Kavanaugh may have perjured himself. Will those charges be filed or is that matter going to disappear?
I read one comment in a news article that a protester stated that she did not want someone who committed a sexual assault to be on the Supreme Court. I don't disagree, but Kavanaugh is not guilty of that--he hasn't even been charged with that as a crime. This brings me to a more general question: should *any* crime prevent someone from holding a public office, regardless of its nature? If the answer is "yes", then should we open FBI investigations into all politicians currently in office to verify that they don't have criminal skeletons in their closets? If the answer is "no", then we have to figure out which crimes disqualify someone from holding office.
No one is going to suffer for waiting a week. I bet, though, that by Tuesday some are going to start grumbling that "one week isn't long enough".
I think you're stuck on the idea that this has to be a criminal investigation. The Democrats on the senate judiciary committee werent asking for that. Most people who are in favor of an investigation arent necessarily looking for him to be charged with anything directly. (I also dont disfavor that option if enough evidence comes up, but I'm not angling for that).
Instead - we want to have as more corroborating evidence as is humanly possible in order to let the senate make as informed of a decision as possible. Based on their testimony yesterday, either Kavanaugh or Ford perjured themselves. That's an issue. I'm not speaking legally, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone getting one of the most important jobs in the US history.
To answer your questions more specifically: If they find something especially damning, then sure - in the hearing they suggested the statute of limitations for this kind of thing doesnt run out in Maryland. Prosecute him. If they dont find something particularly damning but someone like Mark Judge doesnt feel like perjuring himself to protect Kavanaugh, and he corroborates Ford, then Kavanaugh is not made one of the 114 most important jurists in the history of the United States.
If we find evidence that Ford was mistaken, or misleading - then the allegation of sexual assault should be cleared. This *doesnt* mean he should be put on the court either. It looks like he perjured himself numerous times yesterday alone, and a number of time before that too. While I dont particularly care if he goes to trial over it, I dont support someone who will lie under oath when it benefits them, and dont want that person on the court.
If they find *literally nothing*to corroborate either side, then things are as they were a week ago when Ford came forward, and I would still not be in favor of him, on the court, for the reasons I specified just now. I would still consider Ford far more credible, and it would be my own personal opinion that he's an entitled white kid who was born on third base thinking he hit a triple.
Tl;dr - I dont want him on the court under any reasonable circumstance. He shot himself in the foot yesterday.
We should open up criminal investigations on all of them and remove those from power and authority who can't be law-abiding citizens.
If having a criminal record excludes people from working most jobs in the public sector then why are we ok with having thieves, murderers, rapist, embezzlers, liars, and war criminals creating and enforcing our laws.
I will be more than happy for my tax $$$ to be used to fund such a mass investigation, exodus, and re-hiring (with further investigation).
I say start at the top and work our way down. President first, then Congress, all the way down to the local level.
Every politician should be accountable to the letter and spirit of the law they uphold and expand upon.
Once we have removed the criminals from our political system, we can finally go after the corporations they have been sheltering.
Okay, so the FBI gets a week to look into things. For the sake of discussion, let us presume they find new information or more instances of highly questionable and inappropriate behavior. Will they ask for more time--another week or two? Would they be able to press charges or would potential criminal charges be kicked back to the local police department with jurisdiction over the locale where the behavior occurred? What if, while conducting this investigation, they uncover a completely different matter which also requires investigation?
Now, also for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the FBI does not find any new information or instances of highly questionable or inappropriate behavior. Will that close the chapter or will people still suspect him of being guilty of something?
On a related topic, as @semiticgod notes it appears Kavanaugh may have perjured himself. Will those charges be filed or is that matter going to disappear?
I read one comment in a news article that a protester stated that she did not want someone who committed a sexual assault to be on the Supreme Court. I don't disagree, but Kavanaugh is not guilty of that--he hasn't even been charged with that as a crime. This brings me to a more general question: should *any* crime prevent someone from holding a public office, regardless of its nature? If the answer is "yes", then should we open FBI investigations into all politicians currently in office to verify that they don't have criminal skeletons in their closets? If the answer is "no", then we have to figure out which crimes disqualify someone from holding office.
No one is going to suffer for waiting a week. I bet, though, that by Tuesday some are going to start grumbling that "one week isn't long enough".
To me, the cover-up is often a bigger problem than the crime. Everyone makes mistakes. Are you honest about it or do you try to cover it up? If you are honest then people know what they are getting (or voting for). If you lie, hide, conceal, or misrepresent yourself then that reveals a current problem and concern and places what we think we know about the past in doubt. Especially if you do this repeatedly and on multiple topics that speaks to a poor character, doesn't it?
There will be no current charges filed, one would think. It's unlikely he sexually assaulted anyone within the statute of limitations. He has lied, will charges be made from that? It's possible I guess.
As others have said this is a job interview. A background check on these serious allegations is warranted so we know what we are getting. Will we find out he engaged in sexual assault activity and he has been currently lying about his past behavior. Actually that has already happened since Ford's story is credible. Further investigation could further corroborate this. You want to vote for that, Republicans?
In any situation i'm likely to find the party that has the evidence supporting them to be more credible then one who doesn't. Innocent people wrongfully convicted on practically nonexistent evidence and lots of subjective "good/bad vibes" is a thing.
As an aside, welcoming whatever the committee wants to do, including investigation, is literally what he said, but you are just dismissing it and calling him a liar in cahoots with the Republicans because he didn't say "Please investigate me, FBI" on the floor but left it up to their decision. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
You can choose to believe what your favored team says for whatever reasons you want, what you can't do is provide even a minimum standard of proof for Ford's claims, so there is no reason for anyone else to act upon them let alone take them seriously.
A complete lack of anything substantial will not stop those convinced that the smoking gun is just under the next rock, and since the investigation looks to be going forward as of right now, I guess we will see.
As @semiticgod responded there is already evidence and I think it's highly likely that an investigation would provide plenty more about the relative credibility of the two sides. However, my guess is that there won't be an investigation. As you say we all have opinions and mine is that Kavanaugh clearly perjured himself and an investigation would only make that even more obvious. If Trump shares that opinion that it would not make sense for him to agree an investigation as that would reflect badly on him as well as Kavanaugh. If it becomes clear that Congress will not confirm Kavanaugh without an investigation then I expect Trump to just drop him.
One of them "actively dodged questions. He often repeated the same non-answer over and over. Other times, he insisted on answering a question with “context” — which inevitably was a long story about his childhood — but never actually answered the question."
I'll leave it up to you to decide who was more truthful and credible.
Okay, so the FBI gets a week to look into things. For the sake of discussion, let us presume they find new information or more instances of highly questionable and inappropriate behavior. Will they ask for more time--another week or two? Would they be able to press charges or would potential criminal charges be kicked back to the local police department with jurisdiction over the locale where the behavior occurred? What if, while conducting this investigation, they uncover a completely different matter which also requires investigation?
Now, also for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the FBI does not find any new information or instances of highly questionable or inappropriate behavior. Will that close the chapter or will people still suspect him of being guilty of something?
On a related topic, as @semiticgod notes it appears Kavanaugh may have perjured himself. Will those charges be filed or is that matter going to disappear?
I read one comment in a news article that a protester stated that she did not want someone who committed a sexual assault to be on the Supreme Court. I don't disagree, but Kavanaugh is not guilty of that--he hasn't even been charged with that as a crime. This brings me to a more general question: should *any* crime prevent someone from holding a public office, regardless of its nature? If the answer is "yes", then should we open FBI investigations into all politicians currently in office to verify that they don't have criminal skeletons in their closets? If the answer is "no", then we have to figure out which crimes disqualify someone from holding office.
No one is going to suffer for waiting a week. I bet, though, that by Tuesday some are going to start grumbling that "one week isn't long enough".
So once again no: not all politicans. Politicans are elected by the public they serve and only for a set period of time. If the people of Arizona wanted to elect Arpiao, there is nothing anyone outside of that state can do or say to change their opinion especially if all of his past criminal activity is in the open.
This is completely different from a life time appointment where the general public has little say. The only thing they can do is hold the politicans who appoint these people accountable. This is what happened to Flake.
You have to question how does not holding an investigation benefit the public? It doesn’t. I think Flake (and other Rs) realized this and demanded an investigation.
And once again, this isn’t a criminal trial. This is a procedure to gauge his ability to handle the office of SCOTUS. The turning point for me was how he handled the “black out” question but let’s not even mention the withheld documents from the time he was in the White House. If those leak in the next week, watch out.
If it’s found out that throughout his life he treated women with disrespect then should he be appointed to SCOTUS? The 4 holdouts may still say yes and may say that his life and experience as a lawyer and judge are more important than his personal life and there will be nothing wrong with that statement.
And just because a person isn’t found guilty of a crime, does not mean he didn’t commit it. A shoplifter is still a shoplifter stealing items from the store regardless if they are caught or not.
Our standards for a Supreme Court justice should be very high. "He probably wouldn't be convicted in a criminal trial" is not a high standard. A lot of legit criminals get off scot-free specifically because "reasonable doubt" is extremely broad.
I'm sure that every Republican who ever complained that Hillary Clinton was never indicted can agree that "not being convicted of a crime" is an unacceptably low standard for public office.
You have to question how does not holding an investigation benefit the public? It doesn’t.
How does having morally bankrupt criminals in charge of writing and upholding the laws of the land, who will sell our human and constitutional rights to the highest bidder for their own personal wealth benefit the public?
Committing such crimes when placed in a position of trust and responsibility (politician, judge, lawyer) is treasonous and should be tried and convicted as such. It corrupts the well-being of the nation and it's people and weakens the state against her enemies.
We should hold our lawmakers to a higher standard, not turn a blind eye to obvious corruption.
It's hard not to sometimes feel that this entire Trump-era is nothing but the dying temper tantrum of a society in which (for almost all of it's history) the only group of people who have ever truly mattered and been granted full rights are straight, white men. It's a bulwark against the demographic shift that will hopefully wash away those shameful eras once and for all.
Our standards for a Supreme Court justice should be very high. "He probably wouldn't be convicted in a criminal trial" is not a high standard. A lot of legit criminals get off scot-free specifically because "reasonable doubt" is extremely broad.
I'm sure that every Republican who ever complained that Hillary Clinton was never indicted can agree that "not being convicted of a crime" is an unacceptably low standard for public office.
That's why Democrats, while feeling the need to lower the vote threshold for Senate approval to get ANYBODY confirmed at all, left in place the high standard for Supreme Court nominees.
This seems to not be important to Republicans who lowered the Supreme Court vote threshold and are packing the court with radical ideological partisans (as Kavanaugh revealed himself to be yesterday). Republican lawmakers don't seem to have any respect for the Supreme Court at all as these sham rushed proceedings have shown. To them it seems to just be important to be perceived to "win".
Our standards for a Supreme Court justice should be very high. "He probably wouldn't be convicted in a criminal trial" is not a high standard. A lot of legit criminals get off scot-free specifically because "reasonable doubt" is extremely broad.
I'm sure that every Republican who ever complained that Hillary Clinton was never indicted can agree that "not being convicted of a crime" is an unacceptably low standard for public office.
That's why Democrats, while feeling the need to lower the vote threshold for Senate approval to get ANYBODY confirmed at all, left in place the high standard for Supreme Court nominees.
This seems to not be important to Republicans who lowered the Supreme Court vote threshold and are packing the court with radical ideological partisans (as Kavanaugh revealed himself to be yesterday). Republican lawmakers don't seem to have any respect for the Supreme Court at all as these sham rushed proceedings have shown. To them it seems to just be important to be perceived to "win".
They stole a seat. Nothing they say should ever be taken seriously again. Even if you take the broadest possible definition of the term to it's greatest extreme in terms of the Senate's power in regard to approving Justices, the Republicans still fail because they just flat-out REFUSED to even engage in the process of advising and consenting. All they would have had to do to at least not be subject to alot of these arguments is simply vote down Garland and every subsequent nominee Obama may have hypothetically named. They could have gone through 3 or 4 nominees if they wanted to, and voted them all down. And while that would have LOOKED terrible, it would certainly have neutered the strength of this argument that I constantly make. But they didn't. They refused to even participate in the process. They even straight-up told us it was nothing but a naked power grab meant to hold the seat until a Republican could take office, whether that be 12 months or 8 years of Hillary Clinton. The process is now broken, destroyed. I don't even view Trump's picks as legitimate in any way, shape or form. It was basically a coup of one branch of government. The American electorate OVERWHELMINGLY elected Barack Obama to make Supreme Court picks from 2012-2016. And he was not allowed to do so. And I for one am sick of pretending that I should continue playing on a Monopoly board in which the allocation of money and property has been rigged against me. What possible benefit is there to conceding to the idea that one side should get to start with all 4 railroads and Boardwalk and Park Place??
The GOP complains that the Democrats are stalling until after the midterms, but you could delay the vote for three whole weeks and there'd still be more than two weeks left before the midterms. We have more than a month to make this decision. The GOP wants to hurry not because they're at risk of losing control of the nomination process, but because they know Kavanaugh is faltering under scrutiny and they want to rush him through before any FBI investigation can take place.
No, it's not the elections (although it is also that). It's the Supreme Court.
The (traditional) rule apparently is: "You have to have listened to the arguments to make a vote". And the oral arguments are all in October or early November.
You know what I also found troubling? Kavanaugh couldn't clearly articulate how many beers are "too many". "Whatever the chart says." makes it sound like he doesn't know how many is too many. 2 beers? 3 beers? 4? More? He can't say, "My personal limit is 2, 3 or however many?"
My limit for drinks is 2. At that point, I am relaxed, but nowhere near intoxicated. A bit more giggly, but that's about it. And I probably weigh more than Kavanaugh.
My limit is when I'm buzzed, I can tell. At that point I cut myself off. About 2 blue margaritas with lots of alcohol at a restaurant (a quick google of my favorite has a copycat recipe that calls for 3 oz of various liquors+3oz. sour mix).
I have never had a hangover, let alone drunk myself into either memory loss or unconsciousness.
That said, I rarely drink, probably less than 10 nights a year. My family went to a wine-tasting dinner in early August, and I had a couple Redd's apple ales in mid-July. Those are the only times I recall drinking in the last 6 months or so.
You know what I also found troubling? Kavanaugh couldn't clearly articulate how many beers are "too many". "Whatever the chart says." makes it sound like he doesn't know how many is too many. 2 beers? 3 beers? 4? More? He can't say, "My personal limit is 2, 3 or however many?"
My limit for drinks is 2. At that point, I am relaxed, but nowhere near intoxicated. A bit more giggly, but that's about it. And I probably weigh more than Kavanaugh.
Too many for what? Before a person is intoxicated? The answer is one. Until he is unable to drive home? The answer maybe more than one, but probably less than 4 depending on the amount of time that passed.
There are a lot of other factors involved in mood changes when it comes to intoxicating substances. Some people have a switch (third beer, Mike is fine and coherent, fourth beer he is black out drunk) but most people do not.
And I personally can’t give you a limit for myself. Last night I met my roommate at a bar, had 3 beers and a shot and felt “lubercated.” Two weeks ago, I drank2 beers, roughly 300ml of Gin, 2 full alcoholic cocktails and 5 shots and was just tipsy and coherent enough to “babysit” other drunks. I have no idea what my limit is, it changes everyday.
Unless you're a REALLY large and muscular person, 2 is going to be enough to blow the legal limit regardless of perceived ability to drive.
Although again, it depends. Chugging 2 in 20 minutes is different than nursing 2 for 3 hours. You might not even have alcohol in your body at that slow a consumption rate.
Kavanaugh's drinking is not the issue beyond the fact that he is lying his ass off about it. Alcohol does not make you a different person. It certainly doesn't make you commit sexual assault. What it DOES do is highlight and magnify the worst aspects of your already ingrained personality. For me, that it talking too much and also finding myself experiencing extreme highs or lows depending on the night and situation. I would either be part of the life of the party, or I could flat-out disappear and leave without even telling a single person I was doing so. For Kavanaugh.....well, take a guess......
So Trump has approved a one week "limited" FBI investigation. Better than just blindly rubber stamping the guy with a lot of red flags. I guess we'll see how "limited" it is and if Republicans can successfully keep a lid on things bursting at the seams for a whole week. As others have said the three day FBI investigation into the Anita Hill allegations was a joke, we will see how it goes this time again when the GOP is again pushing an abusive candidate onto the American people.
Kavanaugh's drinking is not the issue beyond the fact that he is lying his ass off about it. Alcohol does not make you a different person. It certainly doesn't make you commit sexual assault. What it DOES do is highlight and magnify the worst aspects of your already ingrained personality. For me, that it talking too much and also finding myself experiencing extreme highs or lows depending on the night and situation. I would either be part of the life of the party, or I could flat-out disappear and leave without even telling a single person I was doing so. For Kavanaugh.....well, take a guess......
True. Alcohol doesn't make you an ass. It makes you act more like yourself and makes it harder/impossible to hide what you are really like. I get giggly. People I know get abusive. I tend not to drink. I've had maybe 2 drinks in the last 5 years. (not a teetotaler, but close enough for government work, as they say.) I'v never been so drunk I blacked out/passed out/forgot what happened.
Also, Kavanaugh lied under oath. I don't want that sort of person on the Supreme court, to whit: O.B. : I was a dude who went to parties in the eighties, and worked on the yearbook staff, so let me shed some light on a few things:
"Boofing" doesn't refer to farts or flatulence. Boofing is a very specific category of anal insertion. He lied about that. Under oath.
"The devil's triangle" is not and has never been a drinking game. It's a euphemism for a threesome involving two men and one woman. He lied about that too. Under oath.
Yearbook editors do not doctor or change copy provided by students for their dedication page without their permission. Whatever he wrote in his yearbook is 100% his own words. He lied about that as well. Under oath.
Just like he lied about his drinking, just like he lied about never having assaulted anyone, just like he lied about the reasons why he won't agree to an FBI investigation to prove his innocence, just like he lied about not having tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party.
The boy who tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party was exactly the same entitled, binge-drinking jock douchebag who got away with the same exact crap at your school in the eighties and nineties.
That's who Brett Kavanaugh is.
I don't even have to believe Dr. Ford. I do, but I don't have to. I just don't believe him. None of what he said today was true, and it was obvious. His lies were absurd and easy to debunk. He isn't even a good liar.
Here's a photo of the real Brett Kavanaugh. Not the sniveling gaslighting jackass in a cheap suit who barked at Senators today and whined about not being handed a job he feels entitled to.
Here's the guy who shoved an innocent girl into a room with his friend, locked the door, tried to rape her, and then went on about his day. That's his true face.
He lied under oath for the better part of an hour today, and every man who grew up in the same era fucking knows it.
@WarChiefZeke: As we've discussed, Kavanaugh's yearbook already provides documentary evidence that he committed perjury about his high school days in this very hearing.
He did not commit perjury. He told the truth. I assume you are talking about the Renate Alumni thing with the yearbook. This is not evidence he sexually assaulted Ford, nor that he slept with her. Renate herself is a character witness for Kavanaugh and denies that he slept with her.
"This month, Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined 64 other women who, saying they knew Judge Kavanaugh during their high school years, signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is weighing Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. The letter stated that “he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.” When Ms. Dolphin signed the Sept. 14 letter, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references on the pages of Judge Kavanaugh and his football teammates. “I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”
Ford's discussions with her doctor from 6 years ago already provide documentary evidence that her claims date back long before Kavanaugh ever approached a nomination--which means there is no possibility that partisan politics made these allegations up out of thin air.
Correct, this is evidence that her claims were not made up during the 2018 nomination cycle. I was going to mention the fact that it doesn't even name him so it doesn't even do that much but I don't like splitting hairs, it's good enough. Referencing my previous post for a second, I see four possibilities, and all this does is eliminate possibility number 2.
""1) The allegation is completely true 2) Allegation is completely false and deceptive 3) Allegation is partially false due to exaggeration 4) Allegation is false, or partially false, due to faulty memory ""
I stated then that reasonable people should solidly lean towards 4, and I will continue to stand by that until you present anything other than Ford's claims alone as evidence that he did so, and with faulty memory in testimony being the leading cause of wrongful convictions and all, I find that reasonable. Allow me to give some context to why 4 is an entirely credible interpretation, especially when dealing with a claim decades old, where nobody was in correct state of mind.
"In a career spanning four decades, Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has done more than any other researcher to document the unreliability of memory in experimental settings. And she has used what she has learned to testify as an expert witness in hundreds of criminal cases — Pacely's was her 101st — informing juries that memories are pliable and that eyewitness accounts are far from perfect recordings of actual events.
Now, the 68-year-old scientist's research is starting to bring about lasting changes in the legal system. In July last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling — based largely on her findings — that jurors should be alerted to the imperfect nature of memory and the fallibility of eyewitness testimony as standard procedure. Loftus is working with judges in other states to make such changes more widespread.""
Our skepticism is not based simply on Kavanaugh breaking down and losing his temper
Irrelevant, if I was being accused of assault and rape and all this other stuff I would be upset too. None of this proves anything one way or the other about whether he assaulted Ford 30 years ago at an unknown location.
If struggling to avoid answering questions is discrediting then you should have no reason to believe Ford who can not give any concrete details surrounding the incident..
So the Feinstein/Ford contradiction didn't happen? The contradiction in her notes and statement about the number of people present didn't happen? You seem to only be seeing the contradictions you want to see. Contradictions regarding the alleged incident, and not irrelevant details about his personal life, are also much more important to the case, would you not agree?
Hard to have holes in a story that begins and ends with "K did it, I don't remember anything else including the date or location"
or the fact that the alleged assault already fits Kavanaugh's profile like a glove.
Complete bollocks. Nothing in his decades of adult life gives any indication of this sort of behavior and liking beer isn't evidence of a tendency towards rape.
You don't have to agree with anyone, but you can't very well tell us that we haven't cited concrete evidence multiple times over the past 10 pages, because we were there.
I can say that and will continue to say that, because it is true.
Kavanaugh's drinking is not the issue beyond the fact that he is lying his ass off about it. Alcohol does not make you a different person. It certainly doesn't make you commit sexual assault. What it DOES do is highlight and magnify the worst aspects of your already ingrained personality. For me, that it talking too much and also finding myself experiencing extreme highs or lows depending on the night and situation. I would either be part of the life of the party, or I could flat-out disappear and leave without even telling a single person I was doing so. For Kavanaugh.....well, take a guess......
True. Alcohol doesn't make you an ass. It makes you act more like yourself and makes it harder/impossible to hide what you are really like. I get giggly. People I know get abusive. I tend not to drink. I've had maybe 2 drinks in the last 5 years. (not a teetotaler, but close enough for government work, as they say.) I'v never been so drunk I blacked out/passed out/forgot what happened.
Also, Kavanaugh lied under oath. I don't want that sort of person on the Supreme court, to whit: O.B. : I was a dude who went to parties in the eighties, and worked on the yearbook staff, so let me shed some light on a few things:
"Boofing" doesn't refer to farts or flatulence. Boofing is a very specific category of anal insertion. He lied about that. Under oath.
"The devil's triangle" is not and has never been a drinking game. It's a euphemism for a threesome involving two men and one woman. He lied about that too. Under oath.
Yearbook editors do not doctor or change copy provided by students for their dedication page without their permission. Whatever he wrote in his yearbook is 100% his own words. He lied about that as well. Under oath.
Just like he lied about his drinking, just like he lied about never having assaulted anyone, just like he lied about the reasons why he won't agree to an FBI investigation to prove his innocence, just like he lied about not having tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party.
The boy who tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party was exactly the same entitled, binge-drinking jock douchebag who got away with the same exact crap at your school in the eighties and nineties.
That's who Brett Kavanaugh is.
I don't even have to believe Dr. Ford. I do, but I don't have to. I just don't believe him. None of what he said today was true, and it was obvious. His lies were absurd and easy to debunk. He isn't even a good liar.
Here's a photo of the real Brett Kavanaugh. Not the sniveling gaslighting jackass in a cheap suit who barked at Senators today and whined about not being handed a job he feels entitled to.
Here's the guy who shoved an innocent girl into a room with his friend, locked the door, tried to rape her, and then went on about his day. That's his true face.
He lied under oath for the better part of an hour today, and every man who grew up in the same era fucking knows it.
It seems like you are quoting a post here, but it is tough to make out if that is the case. I googled a portion of it and it does indeed come from a blog post, but I just don't want anyone to be mistaken about the origin of the content. Not trying to be a nitpick, the formatting on this site isn't the best to begin with, I usually try to bold and italicize quotes, but to each their own. I'm not trying to be critical, it just helps sometimes for context and makes telling the words of the poster and those who they are quoting apart. I admit I am a bit of a grammar Nazi, and the quote system here doesn't make it any easier to format things. I just thought I'd mention I had a difficult time telling where your words ended and the quotes began and ended until I googled the bulk of the post. It's entirely possible I just missed the boat and everyone else knew exactly what was up. Carry on.
This is.....pretty damning in and of itself. This article has an entire interactive transcript of both Professor Ford's and Judge Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday, and it color codes each time a question was answered and every time a question was not addressed directly or evaded. And the results are......well, just see for your self what the results are:
@WarChiefZeke: First, the Renate quote you provided was not made under oath. Second, even now, we have no other explanation for the meaning of the "Renate Alumnius" line. Even Kavanaugh himself could not explain any other meaning for the term when asked. It means he slept with her. If there was any other meaning, Kavanaugh could have easily provided it and he failed to do so when given the opportunity.
Third, Renate Dolphin had reason to lie. Out of embarrassment or shame at being viewed as "easy" at the time, she had every reason to deny that she slept with this man. Not being under oath would only make it easier.
Fourth, even if we take Renate's not-under-oath statement at face value and don't even bother wondering what the hell else "Renate Alumnius" could mean, Kavanaugh also lied about the meaning of "boof" and "Devil's Triangle." Also perjury.
We have three blatant acts of perjury and you're trying to discredit only a single one of them by citing a quote from a person who had reason to lie (few women would admit to sleeping around in high school) and who was not even under oath at the time the quote was made.
Can you elaborate on the Feinstein/Ford contradiction? You've vaguely mentioned its existence but have never specified what it actually is.
This is.....pretty damning in and of itself. This article has an entire interactive transcript of both Professor Ford's and Judge Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday, and it color codes each time a question was answered and every time a question was not addressed directly or evaded. And the results are......well, just see for your self what the results are:
Complete bollocks. Nothing in his decades of adult life gives any indication of this sort of behavior and liking beer isn't evidence of a tendency towards rape.
The fourth woman. 1998, when he was in his 30's. That shows him acting in a way similar to what is claimed happened in high school/college in his adult life.
Comments
As an aside, welcoming whatever the committee wants to do, including investigation, is literally what he said, but you are just dismissing it and calling him a liar in cahoots with the Republicans because he didn't say "Please investigate me, FBI" on the floor but left it up to their decision. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.
You can choose to believe what your favored team says for whatever reasons you want, what you can't do is provide even a minimum standard of proof for Ford's claims, so there is no reason for anyone else to act upon them let alone take them seriously.
A complete lack of anything substantial will not stop those convinced that the smoking gun is just under the next rock, and since the investigation looks to be going forward as of right now, I guess we will see.
Personally, my social and political beliefs can't be summed up in a single catch all buzz word framed a corrupt and self serving media and I am horrified when someones views of the world are so reductionist that they can.
We've been providing a minimum standard of proof for Ford's claims for the past 10 pages. We've cited documents from Kavanaugh's past, we've cited documents from Ford's past, we've cited sworn testimony from Kavanaugh, and we've cited sworn testimony from Ford.
Our skepticism is not based simply on Kavanaugh breaking down and losing his temper and struggling to avoid answering questions, or the lack of holes in Ford's story, or the fact that the alleged assault already fits Kavanaugh's profile like a glove. It's based on both documentary evidence (which we've discussed in detail several times) and sworn testimony (which we've discussed in detail several times).
You don't have to agree with anyone, but you can't very well tell us that we haven't cited concrete evidence multiple times over the past 10 pages, because we were there.
Now, also for the sake of discussion, let us presume that the FBI does not find any new information or instances of highly questionable or inappropriate behavior. Will that close the chapter or will people still suspect him of being guilty of something?
On a related topic, as @semiticgod notes it appears Kavanaugh may have perjured himself. Will those charges be filed or is that matter going to disappear?
I read one comment in a news article that a protester stated that she did not want someone who committed a sexual assault to be on the Supreme Court. I don't disagree, but Kavanaugh is not guilty of that--he hasn't even been charged with that as a crime. This brings me to a more general question: should *any* crime prevent someone from holding a public office, regardless of its nature? If the answer is "yes", then should we open FBI investigations into all politicians currently in office to verify that they don't have criminal skeletons in their closets? If the answer is "no", then we have to figure out which crimes disqualify someone from holding office.
No one is going to suffer for waiting a week. I bet, though, that by Tuesday some are going to start grumbling that "one week isn't long enough".
I think you're stuck on the idea that this has to be a criminal investigation. The Democrats on the senate judiciary committee werent asking for that. Most people who are in favor of an investigation arent necessarily looking for him to be charged with anything directly. (I also dont disfavor that option if enough evidence comes up, but I'm not angling for that).
Instead - we want to have as more corroborating evidence as is humanly possible in order to let the senate make as informed of a decision as possible. Based on their testimony yesterday, either Kavanaugh or Ford perjured themselves. That's an issue. I'm not speaking legally, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone getting one of the most important jobs in the US history.
To answer your questions more specifically: If they find something especially damning, then sure - in the hearing they suggested the statute of limitations for this kind of thing doesnt run out in Maryland. Prosecute him. If they dont find something particularly damning but someone like Mark Judge doesnt feel like perjuring himself to protect Kavanaugh, and he corroborates Ford, then Kavanaugh is not made one of the 114 most important jurists in the history of the United States.
If we find evidence that Ford was mistaken, or misleading - then the allegation of sexual assault should be cleared. This *doesnt* mean he should be put on the court either. It looks like he perjured himself numerous times yesterday alone, and a number of time before that too. While I dont particularly care if he goes to trial over it, I dont support someone who will lie under oath when it benefits them, and dont want that person on the court.
If they find *literally nothing*to corroborate either side, then things are as they were a week ago when Ford came forward, and I would still not be in favor of him, on the court, for the reasons I specified just now. I would still consider Ford far more credible, and it would be my own personal opinion that he's an entitled white kid who was born on third base thinking he hit a triple.
Tl;dr - I dont want him on the court under any reasonable circumstance. He shot himself in the foot yesterday.
We should open up criminal investigations on all of them and remove those from power and authority who can't be law-abiding citizens.
If having a criminal record excludes people from working most jobs in the public sector then why are we ok with having thieves, murderers, rapist, embezzlers, liars, and war criminals creating and enforcing our laws.
I will be more than happy for my tax $$$ to be used to fund such a mass investigation, exodus, and re-hiring (with further investigation).
I say start at the top and work our way down. President first, then Congress, all the way down to the local level.
Every politician should be accountable to the letter and spirit of the law they uphold and expand upon.
Once we have removed the criminals from our political system, we can finally go after the corporations they have been sheltering.
There will be no current charges filed, one would think. It's unlikely he sexually assaulted anyone within the statute of limitations. He has lied, will charges be made from that? It's possible I guess.
As others have said this is a job interview. A background check on these serious allegations is warranted so we know what we are getting. Will we find out he engaged in sexual assault activity and he has been currently lying about his past behavior. Actually that has already happened since Ford's story is credible. Further investigation could further corroborate this. You want to vote for that, Republicans?
Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart
One of them tried to answer every question.
One of them "actively dodged questions. He often repeated the same non-answer over and over. Other times, he insisted on answering a question with “context” — which inevitably was a long story about his childhood — but never actually answered the question."
I'll leave it up to you to decide who was more truthful and credible.
This is completely different from a life time appointment where the general public has little say. The only thing they can do is hold the politicans who appoint these people accountable. This is what happened to Flake.
You have to question how does not holding an investigation benefit the public? It doesn’t. I think Flake (and other Rs) realized this and demanded an investigation.
And once again, this isn’t a criminal trial. This is a procedure to gauge his ability to handle the office of SCOTUS. The turning point for me was how he handled the “black out” question but let’s not even mention the withheld documents from the time he was in the White House. If those leak in the next week, watch out.
If it’s found out that throughout his life he treated women with disrespect then should he be appointed to SCOTUS? The 4 holdouts may still say yes and may say that his life and experience as a lawyer and judge are more important than his personal life and there will be nothing wrong with that statement.
And just because a person isn’t found guilty of a crime, does not mean he didn’t commit it. A shoplifter is still a shoplifter stealing items from the store regardless if they are caught or not.
I'm sure that every Republican who ever complained that Hillary Clinton was never indicted can agree that "not being convicted of a crime" is an unacceptably low standard for public office.
Committing such crimes when placed in a position of trust and responsibility (politician, judge, lawyer) is treasonous and should be tried and convicted as such. It corrupts the well-being of the nation and it's people and weakens the state against her enemies.
We should hold our lawmakers to a higher standard, not turn a blind eye to obvious corruption.
This seems to not be important to Republicans who lowered the Supreme Court vote threshold and are packing the court with radical ideological partisans (as Kavanaugh revealed himself to be yesterday). Republican lawmakers don't seem to have any respect for the Supreme Court at all as these sham rushed proceedings have shown. To them it seems to just be important to be perceived to "win".
The (traditional) rule apparently is: "You have to have listened to the arguments to make a vote". And the oral arguments are all in October or early November. My limit is when I'm buzzed, I can tell. At that point I cut myself off. About 2 blue margaritas with lots of alcohol at a restaurant (a quick google of my favorite has a copycat recipe that calls for 3 oz of various liquors+3oz. sour mix).
I have never had a hangover, let alone drunk myself into either memory loss or unconsciousness.
That said, I rarely drink, probably less than 10 nights a year. My family went to a wine-tasting dinner in early August, and I had a couple Redd's apple ales in mid-July. Those are the only times I recall drinking in the last 6 months or so. Unless you're a REALLY large and muscular person, 2 is going to be enough to blow the legal limit regardless of perceived ability to drive.
Although again, it depends. Chugging 2 in 20 minutes is different than nursing 2 for 3 hours. You might not even have alcohol in your body at that slow a consumption rate.
Also, Kavanaugh lied under oath. I don't want that sort of person on the Supreme court, to whit:
O.B. : I was a dude who went to parties in the eighties, and worked on the yearbook staff, so let me shed some light on a few things:
"Boofing" doesn't refer to farts or flatulence. Boofing is a very specific category of anal insertion. He lied about that. Under oath.
"The devil's triangle" is not and has never been a drinking game. It's a euphemism for a threesome involving two men and one woman. He lied about that too. Under oath.
Yearbook editors do not doctor or change copy provided by students for their dedication page without their permission. Whatever he wrote in his yearbook is 100% his own words. He lied about that as well. Under oath.
Just like he lied about his drinking, just like he lied about never having assaulted anyone, just like he lied about the reasons why he won't agree to an FBI investigation to prove his innocence, just like he lied about not having tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party.
The boy who tried to rape Dr. Ford at that party was exactly the same entitled, binge-drinking jock douchebag who got away with the same exact crap at your school in the eighties and nineties.
That's who Brett Kavanaugh is.
I don't even have to believe Dr. Ford. I do, but I don't have to. I just don't believe him. None of what he said today was true, and it was obvious. His lies were absurd and easy to debunk. He isn't even a good liar.
Here's a photo of the real Brett Kavanaugh. Not the sniveling gaslighting jackass in a cheap suit who barked at Senators today and whined about not being handed a job he feels entitled to.
Here's the guy who shoved an innocent girl into a room with his friend, locked the door, tried to rape her, and then went on about his day. That's his true face.
He lied under oath for the better part of an hour today, and every man who grew up in the same era fucking knows it.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-14 65 Women who know Kavanaugh from High School - Kavanaugh Nomination.pdf
"This month, Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined 64 other women who, saying they knew Judge Kavanaugh during their high school years, signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is weighing Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. The letter stated that “he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect.”
When Ms. Dolphin signed the Sept. 14 letter, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references on the pages of Judge Kavanaugh and his football teammates.
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html Correct, this is evidence that her claims were not made up during the 2018 nomination cycle. I was going to mention the fact that it doesn't even name him so it doesn't even do that much but I don't like splitting hairs, it's good enough. Referencing my previous post for a second, I see four possibilities, and all this does is eliminate possibility number 2.
""1) The allegation is completely true
2) Allegation is completely false and deceptive
3) Allegation is partially false due to exaggeration
4) Allegation is false, or partially false, due to faulty memory ""
I stated then that reasonable people should solidly lean towards 4, and I will continue to stand by that until you present anything other than Ford's claims alone as evidence that he did so, and with faulty memory in testimony being the leading cause of wrongful convictions and all, I find that reasonable. Allow me to give some context to why 4 is an entirely credible interpretation, especially when dealing with a claim decades old, where nobody was in correct state of mind.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-based-justice-acknowledges-our-corrupt-memories/
"In a career spanning four decades, Loftus, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, has done more than any other researcher to document the unreliability of memory in experimental settings. And she has used what she has learned to testify as an expert witness in hundreds of criminal cases — Pacely's was her 101st — informing juries that memories are pliable and that eyewitness accounts are far from perfect recordings of actual events.
Now, the 68-year-old scientist's research is starting to bring about lasting changes in the legal system. In July last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling — based largely on her findings — that jurors should be alerted to the imperfect nature of memory and the fallibility of eyewitness testimony as standard procedure. Loftus is working with judges in other states to make such changes more widespread."" Irrelevant, if I was being accused of assault and rape and all this other stuff I would be upset too. None of this proves anything one way or the other about whether he assaulted Ford 30 years ago at an unknown location. If struggling to avoid answering questions is discrediting then you should have no reason to believe Ford who can not give any concrete details surrounding the incident.. So the Feinstein/Ford contradiction didn't happen? The contradiction in her notes and statement about the number of people present didn't happen? You seem to only be seeing the contradictions you want to see. Contradictions regarding the alleged incident, and not irrelevant details about his personal life, are also much more important to the case, would you not agree?
Hard to have holes in a story that begins and ends with "K did it, I don't remember anything else including the date or location" Complete bollocks. Nothing in his decades of adult life gives any indication of this sort of behavior and liking beer isn't evidence of a tendency towards rape. I can say that and will continue to say that, because it is true.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart
Third, Renate Dolphin had reason to lie. Out of embarrassment or shame at being viewed as "easy" at the time, she had every reason to deny that she slept with this man. Not being under oath would only make it easier.
Fourth, even if we take Renate's not-under-oath statement at face value and don't even bother wondering what the hell else "Renate Alumnius" could mean, Kavanaugh also lied about the meaning of "boof" and "Devil's Triangle." Also perjury.
We have three blatant acts of perjury and you're trying to discredit only a single one of them by citing a quote from a person who had reason to lie (few women would admit to sleeping around in high school) and who was not even under oath at the time the quote was made.
Can you elaborate on the Feinstein/Ford contradiction? You've vaguely mentioned its existence but have never specified what it actually is.