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.
Yes. Crimes during office should be prosecuted.
If a person, such as Apriao, runs for an elected position after he has served his time or repaid his debt to society, and wins. There is nothing anyone should be able to do about it.
And a good read that emphasizes where @WarChiefZeke comes from with American Media and the other allegations.
I can see where @WarChiefZeke is coming from with the allegations but the best move forward is an investigation into them. You want to atleast take them seriously and find as much information as possible. Not holding one, gives the perception that they are hiding something, and after not releasing all of the documents relating to his time in the White House you can’t fault people for thinking that is the case.
I just looked up the Ford/Feinstein contradiction. Apparently Ford's therapist made an error when taking notes, saying four boys were involved in the event instead of four boys were at the party and two were involved in the event, and apparently Ford said that there were two girls: herself and one other girl (I remember Ford saying the exact same thing in her sworn testimony under scrutiny from Rachel Mitchell). I'm not sure the author of this Federalist article even read the words they were typing:
"In her letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, however, Ford wrote, “the assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.”"
Yes, the gathering included four boys. That's what Ford said. It's just a re-phrasing of the same statement. The Federalist is supposed to be a reputable publication, but the above author can't even read the phrase "gathering that included me and four others" in their own article.
In case there's somehow any confusion about the event: at the party, there were four boys and two girls; Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were two of the boys; Ford and a friend of hers were two of the girls; and Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were the two that attacked her. That's the story, expressed in Ford's letter as well as her sworn testimony.
I kept looking and then I found another contradiction that's equally ludicrous: the difference between Ford saying that Kavanaugh pushed her and saying that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge pushed her. Again, a re-phrasing, not a contradiction.
Is that it? These clearly compatible statements are the "contradictions" in her testimony?
Ford re-phrasing a statement is more damning than Kavanaugh perjuring himself about his sexual history against the documentary record of his own yearbook?
@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.
@WarChiefZeke I haven't quoted your full post as responding to everything in there would get confusing. However, I would like to say I think you've put your case well although I don't agree with you.
As I've said a number of times I'm not convinced that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford. I am, however, convinced that Kavanaugh is an unreliable witness who consistently lies and/or evades questions. Just in relation to Renate I agree that the yearbook reference is not strong evidence that he slept with her (or indeed that he slept with anyone). I think it is entirely possible that he just insinuated that he had done that so as to be 'one of the boys'. However, I am in no doubt at all (to a criminal standard, even though that's not relevant in this instance) that he lied about the yearbook reference being intended just to signify he and others were friends with Renate.
The best gloss I could put on this lie is that he made it up in order to spare himself and others embarrassment. If that's the case though that would be another indication to me that he should not be a Supreme Court Justice - I would expect truth to have a high priority there.
Edit: I saw his opening statement, but have been looking for a full transcript - see here. This is what he said about Renate: "One thing in particular we're sad about -- one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would dance with had her name used on the yearbook page with the term alumnus. That yearbook reference was intended to show affection in that she was one of us, but in this circus, the media's determines it was related to sex. It was not related to sex. The woman herself noted the media on the record. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that yearbook reference."
Even within that statement Kavanaugh apologizes to Renate - he knows damn well that the yearbook reference was not just intended to show affection.
@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.
What evidence is there that Renate is lying. None. This is absurd. This is unevidenced claims on top of unevidenced claims in order to get around the fact that the real evidence, her own statements on the matter, do not support this.
We can come with any interpretation we wish to be true, like that someone is lying when they directly contradict us, but without any evidence to back it up, it's wishful thinking.
You will also never be able to prove the truth of what a slang reference means that has no dictionary definition because these things have lots of definitions and they change often over time. 30 years removed, slang can have entirely changed meaning. Sure, the one you want to be true could be what is meant, but it could also not be, and you have no proof either way.
For example, let's go to one of the definitions you claim concrete knowledge of, boofed. Urban Dictionary as of right now gives me 3 pages of definitions. From being unexpectedly dumped, to stealing, to being high, to getting dunked on in basketball, to having sex, it apparently even references a kayaking maneuver. All of which were posted years before now. For Devils Triangle, only two entries ever existed before yesterday, clearly indicating this was not a well used slang term at all, so the existence of this having the same meaning 30 years ago is doubtful at best.
There is simply no way you are going to divine the truth of arcane slang references from the 1980's in a way that isn't going to have gaping holes of plausible, and reasonable, deniability.
This is pathetic. I try to research a right-wing talking point and I end up with some random creative writing student claiming to be a "document expert" (I'm a writer myself, and creative writing does not give you analytical skills) and saying on some fringe site that the letter to Feinstein couldn't have been written by a PhD like Dr. Ford because it had grammatical errors like typing 1980's instead of 1980s.
Is that what the criticism of Ford's testimony is always like? Misreading a clearly-written sentence and complaining about apostrophes? This is the grounds for disregarding Ford's testimony?
No wonder Lindsay Graham and the other GOP senators spent their time complaining about Kavanaugh's suffering instead of actually criticizing details.
This is pathetic. I try to research a right-wing talking point and I end up with some random creative writing student claiming to be a "document expert" (I'm a writer myself, and creative writing does not give you analytical skills) and saying on some fringe site that the letter to Feinstein couldn't have been written by a PhD like Dr. Ford because it had grammatical errors like typing 1980's instead of 1980s.
I would advise you not to go down this rabbit-hole. As @ThacoBell one said when this thread first started about myself, "if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze also into you". I've gazed into this right-wing media abyss since at least 2002-2003. I did it initially to try understand the tactics of the other side of my political beliefs. What I found genuinely probably made me a worse person. Don't be like Bluebeard's wife or the husband at the end of "The Vanishing". You won't like what you find when you seek this knowledge.
What evidence is there that Renate is lying. None. This is absurd. This is unevidenced claims on top of unevidenced claims in order to get around the fact that the real evidence, her own statements on the matter, do not support this.
We can come with any interpretation we wish to be true, like that someone is lying when they directly contradict us, but without any evidence to back it up, it's wishful thinking.
You will also never be able to prove the truth of what a slang reference means that has no dictionary definition because these things have lots of definitions and they change often over time. 30 years removed, slang can have entirely changed meaning. Sure, the one you want to be true could be what is meant, but it could also not be, and you have no proof either way.
For example, let's go to one of the definitions you claim concrete knowledge of, boofed. Urban Dictionary as of right now gives me 3 pages of definitions. From being unexpectedly dumped, to stealing, to being high, to getting dunked on in basketball, to having sex, it apparently even references a kayaking maneuver. All of which were posted years before now. For Devils Triangle, only two entries ever existed before yesterday, clearly indicating this was not a well used slang term at all, so the existence of this having the same meaning 30 years ago is doubtful at best.
There is simply no way you are going to divine the truth of arcane slang references from the 1980's in a way that isn't going to have gaping holes of plausible, and reasonable, deniability.
Honestly - your arguments arent any more compelling. You want to attack every claim against Kavanaugh as if there's no possible way they could be credible, and simultaneously deem Ford as being incapable of being credible. You decry the Democrats for being partisan, and line up a partisan volley in response.
Simply saying that someone didnt elaborate perfectly on the number of people at a party isnt damning evidence. For example - If Kavanaugh's calendar fails to mention a specific person as being at an event, is he "lying"? No. It just wasnt mentioned.
If he refuses to mention that person when asked directly, under oath, then it's an issue.
Kavanaugh had to spin tale after tale about his yearbook to suggest he's never -in his life- been fuzzy on details after drinking. This is despite the numerous accounts of other classmates that directly contradict him. You claim that there is no evidence, but there is a *crap* ton of corroboration.
The students in the yearbook clearly indicate that the Renate Alumni thing was supposed to be sexual in nature. Personally - I believe Renate that she didnt sleep with him (She said she didnt. He said he didnt. I see her as credible). What I see as totally lacking credibility is how he tried to says "It means we were friends! I am an "alumnus" of her friendship!". Even she didnt see it that way. She believe it was boasting of a sexual conquest.
You referenced the therapists notes earlier, and how his name wasnt mentioned. However, her husband has signed an affidavit saying that she mentioned his name in that setting. Therapists might not write down every detail, so that detail not being there doesnt disprove his name was said, just that it's not in her notes. Similarly, her husband claiming she did say it doesnt prove she actually did.
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Also - this whole Ford/Feinstein thing is crap. The controversy is because Ford said the only ones who had her "letter" were Feinstein and the local rep in California. So if Ford didnt leak it, Feinstein must have! Except it doesnt look like Feinstein ever leaked it, because the letter wasnt leaked. The story was leaked. These are two different things, and arent some leftwing conspiracy. Likely, someone on a Democrat's staff made innuendo about Ford and her situation to reporters - who went and did what they do. No nefarious plot. No cover up.
I would just like to say, just like with Trump, we should all just wait for what the investigation into the claims against Kavanaugh brings up.
Speculating about it, with as little evidence as we have is not going to change anyone’s opinion, and looking at how “the other side” is viewing the allegations is meaningless.
As Zeke said, no one here knows what Renate Allumnis means. Those who are part of the Allumni so to speak, will though, and I expect the FBI to talk to all of them.
I will also expect the FBI to talk to as many people in the yearbook as possible to find out what those terms actually meant back in those days.
The FBI now has a job to do and anything outside that report will just be noise. This is how these allegations should have been handled from the beginning - privately.
Maybe I'm too quick to judge the opposition to Ford. It's just that this was one of the first things that came up. You didn't have to delve more than a single page into a Google search to find something ridiculous. Ostensibly, the first results would all be credible sources. Maybe I just picked a bad subject.
I'm not sure the opposition to Ford is exactly a conservative thing to begin with, anyway. @ThacoBell and @Balrog99 are the most common conservative posters in this thread, and neither of them have strained to disagree with her. I think you two guys saw the same hearings that I did.
I'm sorry if I speak too harshly, or if I sound like I'm castigating the conservative point of view. I shouldn't look at pundits or even politicians if I want to understand the Republican viewpoint.
It seems to me the opposition to Ford's story has shifted once every 24 hours. First the problem was she was anonymous. After her name was revealed it was the fact that it was 30 years old. After that it was because he was 17 and hasn't had any similar allegations in later adulthood. Then it was that Ford probably was assaulted but by a Brett Kavanaugh doppelganger. Then it was there were no other allegations. When the other allegations came forward they were also not credible. Then Ford testifies, clearly comports herself FAR better than Kavanaugh by any actual measurable standard, and the goalposts shift to Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats because there is simply no longer any plausible or reasonable way to attack Professor Ford after her testimony. Tomorrow we will almost certainly have an entirely new reason. By Monday we will probably have 3 more on top of that.
And on the other side we just have people who have believed her from the beginning. What am I missing here??
And when I say "any measurable standard", I am referring to 1.) answering the questions that are asked of you and b.) not getting into shouting matches with US Senators while attempting to demonstrate your fitness for a job that requires one to be above such outbursts and to control your emotions even in the most difficult of circumstances.
@ThacoBell@Balrog99: I like how you guys explain the greater principles behind your politics in your posts, which I otherwise might not understand as a liberal. It's one of the reasons I tend to look forward to your posts. Whether we agree or disagree, I feel like I come out with a better understanding of your point of view.
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.
Trump seems to have bowed to the inevitable with the FBI investigation. However, he says it will be "limited in scope", whatever that means to him. I have no idea.
Trump seems to have bowed to the inevitable with the FBI investigation. However, he says it will be "limited in scope", whatever that means to him. I have no idea.
This is pure speculation, but I'm guessing it'll be limited to only the Ford allegation and not deal at all with the other two allegations.
Trump seems to have bowed to the inevitable with the FBI investigation. However, he says it will be "limited in scope", whatever that means to him. I have no idea.
This is pure speculation, but I'm guessing it'll be limited to only the Ford allegation and not deal at all with the other two allegations.
That's my read.
Possibly. They have a week to investigate. I am thinking they are going to question Mark Judge and other people who went to school with Kavanaugh. Possibly Julie Swetnick, as she was there at the time.
@semiticgod Thanks, I try really hard to be as clear as possible. Everybody understanding each other is far more important than "winning" when it comes to any kind of debate or discussion.
And his rant about the Clintons and left? That also left him looking shady. Wouldn't you want someone who was neutral to either side deciding issues? Imagine, instead of him excoriating the Clintons, he did it with his focus on Trump, claiming he would fight on the culture war against President Trump. Would you still think he should be on the Supreme Court? Would the Republicans confirm such a person? Think about it.
Renate Dolphin signed the letter along with the other women.
BUT
She was unaware of the sexual joke Bart Kavanaugh had written on his yearbook entry. Once it was pointed out that he had written that he was a Renate Alumni she has withdrawn her support of him and disavowed him. This happened a couple days ago. Did you guys miss it? Another woman also withdrew he support for Kavanaugh.
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.”
“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
And again, having a letter signed by 65 women he didn't rape isn't proof of anything. Bill Cosby could probably come up with a list of women he didn't rape. You see the trick is to get the ones you didn't rape to sign it, genius right. The ones you raped or harassed you don't get them to sign. It seems like Kavanaugh screwed this part up with getting Renate to sign the letter. He forgot about the sexual joke on his yearbook and once she found out she has disavowed him.
Why does what any of us think matter in the Kavanaugh hearing?
We do not have a vote in the matter. We have no influence on the investigation. We cannot provide witness or testimony and even if we could it would simply be ignored (regardless of truth) in favor of whoever had the more powerful agenda.
If it is because he is unsuitable for his position due to his criminality. So are the rest of the SCOTUS and the vast majority of Congress.
If it's because he sexually assaulted women... well we have a rape kit backlog going back decades to the point that they are literally rotting away while millions of violent rapists go free.
How are we contributing to a solution for:
Ending corruption in our legal and political system
Making sex criminals culpable to the law
Taking any step forward in the losing battle of women's equality
Just for the sake of this thread, I fired off another message to Bernie.
That one little paragraph will have a larger impact than 10,000 angry posts on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or even this thread.
Regardless of whether you are for or against Kavanaugh, don't forget to write to your senator as they are the person that can actually do something about the matter.
If you do not live in the US. Donate to charity.
Until you do, my opinion has more worth than yours because you have words but I have action.
Everyone is welcome to attend, there are free bagels and coffee. Bernie speaks at length about an issue he wants to promote or make people aware of and then he does a lengthy question and answer session where people can bring up anything from needed state assistance or intervention to complex geopolitical issues. Bernie will then discuss the issue in great detail or discuss the issue in great detail and then have one of his aids go with the person help get their situation taken care of.
When he was campaigning for President that same format turned into his political rallies. So for a short while, the entire country got to experience what it's like to go to a Bernie Town meeting.
Sadly the current state of Washington has kept him away from us for months. So instead of bringing it up in person, an e-mail has to do.
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Since this isn't a criminal proceeding, we can only go by (so far) what we saw on Thursday. Professor Ford conducted herself with grace and dignity under great pressure. Judge Kavanaugh was angry, belligerent and completely unstable. Ford answered every question asked of her, Kavanaugh was ducking and dodging nearly every other question when he wasn't refusing to answer them outright.
Beyond that, I have serious concerns given his own statements and attitude on Thursday that Kavanaugh can even remotely pretend to be an impartial judge of any cases that come before him. Because he seemed to give every indication to me that he might make rulings simply out of spite or revenge. If I was 75% sure he'd (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade before, I am now 99% sure he would just so he could stick it to all the women and liberals who turned against him and tried to prevent him from taking his god-given seat on the Supreme Court. He literally used the phrase "what goes around comes around". He is going supposed to be a one of 9 Justices on the Supreme Court. That statement should be disqualifying on it's own. Much like Trump, he just flat-out doesn't have the temperament to be handed this kind of power.
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Since this isn't a criminal proceeding, we can only go by (so far) what we saw on Thursday. Professor Ford conducted herself with grace and dignity under great pressure. Judge Kavanaugh was angry, belligerent and completely unstable. Ford answered every question asked of her, Kavanaguh was ducking and dodging nearly every other question when he wasn't refusing to answer them outright.
Beyond that, I have serious concerns given his own statements and attitude on Thursday that Kavanaugh can even remotely pretend to be an impartial judge of any cases that come before him. Because he seemed to give every indication to me that he might make rulings simply out of spite or revenge. If I was 75% sure he'd (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade before, I am now 99% sure he would just so he could stick it to all the women and liberals who turned against him and tried to prevent him from taking his god-given seat on the Supreme Court.
Right, but it also doesn't follow that because Ford was more convincing then her claim is necessarily true.
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Since this isn't a criminal proceeding, we can only go by (so far) what we saw on Thursday. Professor Ford conducted herself with grace and dignity under great pressure. Judge Kavanaugh was angry, belligerent and completely unstable. Ford answered every question asked of her, Kavanaguh was ducking and dodging nearly every other question when he wasn't refusing to answer them outright.
Beyond that, I have serious concerns given his own statements and attitude on Thursday that Kavanaugh can even remotely pretend to be an impartial judge of any cases that come before him. Because he seemed to give every indication to me that he might make rulings simply out of spite or revenge. If I was 75% sure he'd (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade before, I am now 99% sure he would just so he could stick it to all the women and liberals who turned against him and tried to prevent him from taking his god-given seat on the Supreme Court.
Right, but it also doesn't follow that because Ford was more convincing then her claim is necessarily true.
We could say this about any disputed situation between two people where there is no physical evidence. As human beings we have to evaluate things like temperament, body language, and just flat-out undefinable intangible factors and decide who we think is telling the truth and who isn't.
Let's turn this around (and this has been mentioned by people thousands of times since Thursday): what would have happened if Professor Ford had acted like Kavanaugh did?? What if she had started berating Republican Senators for not believing her?? What if she had refused to answer the questions the outside council from Arizona asked and instead tried to shift the narrative on each one rather than answering them directly and as truthfully as she could?? I'll tell you what would have happened. She would have been dismissed as an "overly emotional, unstable woman".
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Since this isn't a criminal proceeding, we can only go by (so far) what we saw on Thursday. Professor Ford conducted herself with grace and dignity under great pressure. Judge Kavanaugh was angry, belligerent and completely unstable. Ford answered every question asked of her, Kavanaguh was ducking and dodging nearly every other question when he wasn't refusing to answer them outright.
Beyond that, I have serious concerns given his own statements and attitude on Thursday that Kavanaugh can even remotely pretend to be an impartial judge of any cases that come before him. Because he seemed to give every indication to me that he might make rulings simply out of spite or revenge. If I was 75% sure he'd (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade before, I am now 99% sure he would just so he could stick it to all the women and liberals who turned against him and tried to prevent him from taking his god-given seat on the Supreme Court.
Right, but it also doesn't follow that because Ford was more convincing then her claim is necessarily true.
We could say this about any disputed situation between two people where there is no physical evidence. As human beings we have to evaluate things like temperament, body language, and just flat-out undefinable intangible factors and decide who we think is telling the truth and who isn't.
Let's turn this around (and this has been mentioned be people thousands of times since Thursday): what would have happened if Professor Ford had acted like Kavanaugh did?? What if she had started berating Republican Senators for not believing her?? What if she had refused to answer the questions the outside council from Arizona asked and instead tried to shift the narrative on each one rather than answering them directly and as truthfully as she could?? I'll tell you what would have happened. She would have been dismissed as an "overly emotional, unstable woman".
We could indeed, and IMO we should be saying this about any such situation.
As for if their respective outlooks were reversed, I would be saying "It doesn't follow that because K was more convincing then his claim is necessarily true."
Comments
If a person, such as Apriao, runs for an elected position after he has served his time or repaid his debt to society, and wins. There is nothing anyone should be able to do about it.
And a good read that emphasizes where @WarChiefZeke comes from with American Media and the other allegations.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-most-obvious-creeps-in-the-kavanaugh-circus-are-the-journalists
I can see where @WarChiefZeke is coming from with the allegations but the best move forward is an investigation into them. You want to atleast take them seriously and find as much information as possible. Not holding one, gives the perception that they are hiding something, and after not releasing all of the documents relating to his time in the White House you can’t fault people for thinking that is the case.
"In her letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, however, Ford wrote, “the assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.”"
Yes, the gathering included four boys. That's what Ford said. It's just a re-phrasing of the same statement. The Federalist is supposed to be a reputable publication, but the above author can't even read the phrase "gathering that included me and four others" in their own article.
In case there's somehow any confusion about the event: at the party, there were four boys and two girls; Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were two of the boys; Ford and a friend of hers were two of the girls; and Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge were the two that attacked her. That's the story, expressed in Ford's letter as well as her sworn testimony.
I kept looking and then I found another contradiction that's equally ludicrous: the difference between Ford saying that Kavanaugh pushed her and saying that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge pushed her. Again, a re-phrasing, not a contradiction.
Is that it? These clearly compatible statements are the "contradictions" in her testimony?
Ford re-phrasing a statement is more damning than Kavanaugh perjuring himself about his sexual history against the documentary record of his own yearbook?
As I've said a number of times I'm not convinced that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford. I am, however, convinced that Kavanaugh is an unreliable witness who consistently lies and/or evades questions. Just in relation to Renate I agree that the yearbook reference is not strong evidence that he slept with her (or indeed that he slept with anyone). I think it is entirely possible that he just insinuated that he had done that so as to be 'one of the boys'. However, I am in no doubt at all (to a criminal standard, even though that's not relevant in this instance) that he lied about the yearbook reference being intended just to signify he and others were friends with Renate.
The best gloss I could put on this lie is that he made it up in order to spare himself and others embarrassment. If that's the case though that would be another indication to me that he should not be a Supreme Court Justice - I would expect truth to have a high priority there.
Edit: I saw his opening statement, but have been looking for a full transcript - see here. This is what he said about Renate:
"One thing in particular we're sad about -- one of our good -- one of our good female friends who we would dance with had her name used on the yearbook page with the term alumnus. That yearbook reference was intended to show affection in that she was one of us, but in this circus, the media's determines it was related to sex. It was not related to sex. The woman herself noted the media on the record. She and I never had any sexual interaction at all. So sorry to her for that yearbook reference."
Even within that statement Kavanaugh apologizes to Renate - he knows damn well that the yearbook reference was not just intended to show affection.
We can come with any interpretation we wish to be true, like that someone is lying when they directly contradict us, but without any evidence to back it up, it's wishful thinking.
You will also never be able to prove the truth of what a slang reference means that has no dictionary definition because these things have lots of definitions and they change often over time. 30 years removed, slang can have entirely changed meaning. Sure, the one you want to be true could be what is meant, but it could also not be, and you have no proof either way.
For example, let's go to one of the definitions you claim concrete knowledge of, boofed. Urban Dictionary as of right now gives me 3 pages of definitions. From being unexpectedly dumped, to stealing, to being high, to getting dunked on in basketball, to having sex, it apparently even references a kayaking maneuver. All of which were posted years before now. For Devils Triangle, only two entries ever existed before yesterday, clearly indicating this was not a well used slang term at all, so the existence of this having the same meaning 30 years ago is doubtful at best.
There is simply no way you are going to divine the truth of arcane slang references from the 1980's in a way that isn't going to have gaping holes of plausible, and reasonable, deniability.
Is that what the criticism of Ford's testimony is always like? Misreading a clearly-written sentence and complaining about apostrophes? This is the grounds for disregarding Ford's testimony?
No wonder Lindsay Graham and the other GOP senators spent their time complaining about Kavanaugh's suffering instead of actually criticizing details.
Simply saying that someone didnt elaborate perfectly on the number of people at a party isnt damning evidence. For example - If Kavanaugh's calendar fails to mention a specific person as being at an event, is he "lying"? No. It just wasnt mentioned.
If he refuses to mention that person when asked directly, under oath, then it's an issue.
Kavanaugh had to spin tale after tale about his yearbook to suggest he's never -in his life- been fuzzy on details after drinking. This is despite the numerous accounts of other classmates that directly contradict him. You claim that there is no evidence, but there is a *crap* ton of corroboration.
The students in the yearbook clearly indicate that the Renate Alumni thing was supposed to be sexual in nature. Personally - I believe Renate that she didnt sleep with him (She said she didnt. He said he didnt. I see her as credible). What I see as totally lacking credibility is how he tried to says "It means we were friends! I am an "alumnus" of her friendship!". Even she didnt see it that way. She believe it was boasting of a sexual conquest.
You referenced the therapists notes earlier, and how his name wasnt mentioned. However, her husband has signed an affidavit saying that she mentioned his name in that setting. Therapists might not write down every detail, so that detail not being there doesnt disprove his name was said, just that it's not in her notes. Similarly, her husband claiming she did say it doesnt prove she actually did.
What I think you should keep in mind is an old aphorism: "Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence". There's reasonable doubt, he wouldnt be convicted of a crime based on the current evidence - but he certainly wasnt exonerated.
Also - this whole Ford/Feinstein thing is crap. The controversy is because Ford said the only ones who had her "letter" were Feinstein and the local rep in California. So if Ford didnt leak it, Feinstein must have! Except it doesnt look like Feinstein ever leaked it, because the letter wasnt leaked. The story was leaked. These are two different things, and arent some leftwing conspiracy. Likely, someone on a Democrat's staff made innuendo about Ford and her situation to reporters - who went and did what they do. No nefarious plot. No cover up.
Speculating about it, with as little evidence as we have is not going to change anyone’s opinion, and looking at how “the other side” is viewing the allegations is meaningless.
As Zeke said, no one here knows what Renate Allumnis means. Those who are part of the Allumni so to speak, will though, and I expect the FBI to talk to all of them.
I will also expect the FBI to talk to as many people in the yearbook as possible to find out what those terms actually meant back in those days.
The FBI now has a job to do and anything outside that report will just be noise. This is how these allegations should have been handled from the beginning - privately.
I'm not sure the opposition to Ford is exactly a conservative thing to begin with, anyway. @ThacoBell and @Balrog99 are the most common conservative posters in this thread, and neither of them have strained to disagree with her. I think you two guys saw the same hearings that I did.
I'm sorry if I speak too harshly, or if I sound like I'm castigating the conservative point of view. I shouldn't look at pundits or even politicians if I want to understand the Republican viewpoint.
And on the other side we just have people who have believed her from the beginning. What am I missing here??
And when I say "any measurable standard", I am referring to 1.) answering the questions that are asked of you and b.) not getting into shouting matches with US Senators while attempting to demonstrate your fitness for a job that requires one to be above such outbursts and to control your emotions even in the most difficult of circumstances.
That's my read.
Other problems with Brett Kavanaugh's testimony under oath
And his rant about the Clintons and left? That also left him looking shady. Wouldn't you want someone who was neutral to either side deciding issues? Imagine, instead of him excoriating the Clintons, he did it with his focus on Trump, claiming he would fight on the culture war against President Trump. Would you still think he should be on the Supreme Court? Would the Republicans confirm such a person? Think about it.
BUT
She was unaware of the sexual joke Bart Kavanaugh had written on his yearbook entry. Once it was pointed out that he had written that he was a Renate Alumni she has withdrawn her support of him and disavowed him. This happened a couple days ago. Did you guys miss it? Another woman also withdrew he support for Kavanaugh.
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.”
“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html
---
And again, having a letter signed by 65 women he didn't rape isn't proof of anything. Bill Cosby could probably come up with a list of women he didn't rape. You see the trick is to get the ones you didn't rape to sign it, genius right. The ones you raped or harassed you don't get them to sign. It seems like Kavanaugh screwed this part up with getting Renate to sign the letter. He forgot about the sexual joke on his yearbook and once she found out she has disavowed him.
Why does what any of us think matter in the Kavanaugh hearing?
We do not have a vote in the matter. We have no influence on the investigation. We cannot provide witness or testimony and even if we could it would simply be ignored (regardless of truth) in favor of whoever had the more powerful agenda.
If it is because he is unsuitable for his position due to his criminality. So are the rest of the SCOTUS and the vast majority of Congress.
If it's because he sexually assaulted women... well we have a rape kit backlog going back decades to the point that they are literally rotting away while millions of violent rapists go free.
How are we contributing to a solution for:
If you feel strongly.
Donate to RAINN.
Donate to the National Women's Law Center.
Help End the Rape Kit Backlog.
And write to your Senator telling them about your opposition to Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Otherwise, all we are doing is taking a perverse pleasure in the outrage culture of the 24-hour news cycle.
You have 7 days to make the world a better place.
Do something.
I'm in Vermont and Bernie doesn't need the push but Ive sent mine anyway. He likes the feedback.
That one little paragraph will have a larger impact than 10,000 angry posts on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or even this thread.
Regardless of whether you are for or against Kavanaugh, don't forget to write to your senator as they are the person that can actually do something about the matter.
If you do not live in the US. Donate to charity.
Until you do, my opinion has more worth than yours because you have words but I have action.
...that's politics.
I would have been a little more serious and detailed about the matter in my message but again... Vermont. Besides, Bernie has enough to deal with.
Usually he returns home to Vermont several times a month and holds a meeting in a different town or college campus.
Everyone is welcome to attend, there are free bagels and coffee. Bernie speaks at length about an issue he wants to promote or make people aware of and then he does a lengthy question and answer session where people can bring up anything from needed state assistance or intervention to complex geopolitical issues. Bernie will then discuss the issue in great detail or discuss the issue in great detail and then have one of his aids go with the person help get their situation taken care of.
When he was campaigning for President that same format turned into his political rallies. So for a short while, the entire country got to experience what it's like to go to a Bernie Town meeting.
Sadly the current state of Washington has kept him away from us for months. So instead of bringing it up in person, an e-mail has to do.
...I do miss the bagels.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.
2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC.
3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Beyond that, I have serious concerns given his own statements and attitude on Thursday that Kavanaugh can even remotely pretend to be an impartial judge of any cases that come before him. Because he seemed to give every indication to me that he might make rulings simply out of spite or revenge. If I was 75% sure he'd (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade before, I am now 99% sure he would just so he could stick it to all the women and liberals who turned against him and tried to prevent him from taking his god-given seat on the Supreme Court. He literally used the phrase "what goes around comes around". He is going supposed to be a one of 9 Justices on the Supreme Court. That statement should be disqualifying on it's own. Much like Trump, he just flat-out doesn't have the temperament to be handed this kind of power.
Let's turn this around (and this has been mentioned by people thousands of times since Thursday): what would have happened if Professor Ford had acted like Kavanaugh did?? What if she had started berating Republican Senators for not believing her?? What if she had refused to answer the questions the outside council from Arizona asked and instead tried to shift the narrative on each one rather than answering them directly and as truthfully as she could?? I'll tell you what would have happened. She would have been dismissed as an "overly emotional, unstable woman".
As for if their respective outlooks were reversed, I would be saying "It doesn't follow that because K was more convincing then his claim is necessarily true."
She could still be an "overly emotional, unstable woman" but if she keeps her shit together during a hearing then she has my vote.