B Kavanough and MeToo

[DrP]

Just now, iNow said:

The President is the chief executive. The executive branch controls the justice department. The FBI is part of the justice dept. 

They shouldn't get involved with shit like that unless it was a matter of national security. Protecting one of their cronies reputations shouldn't be one of the times they can do that.

 

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

They shouldn't get involved with shit like that unless it was a matter of national security. Protecting one of their cronies reputations shouldn't be one of the times they can do that.

 

If wishes were fishes, right?

[mistermack]

34 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

I don't pretend to know the reason he didn't want an investigation, however, I suspect it has something to do with his experience as a lawyer and knowing that just because you're not hiding what everyone thinks you are, there could easily be other things you don't want to them to see.

The idea of demanding an investigation was to delay the appointment till after the election, when the voting balance might be different. Of course, Kavanaugh didn't want that. That explains the timing of the claims as well. They were only thwarted by the quickie nature of the investigation, which defeated their objective, and that's the reason that they were screaming so loud about it. Cunning plan dashed. 

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is an unsubstantiated claim

   You're funny.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Which is why it shouldn't be stated as fact that the whole situation was a Democratic strategy. 

No one said the whole situation was, but if you cannot even admit that there was politics involved in much of this (both sides, but we are discussing the Democrats here) then at least allow us to express that view...I think we consider it obvious.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No one said the whole situation was, but if you cannot even admit that there was politics involved in much of this (both sides, but we are discussing the Democrats here) then at least allow us to express that view...I think we consider it obvious.

Democrats didn't seek out Ford. Democrats didn't solicit for individuals to come forward against Kavanaugh. It was Ford who contacted her representatives on her own volition. What exactly are you suggesting Democrats should have done? Republicans controlled the whole situation. Republicans decided when hearings and votes would be held. Republicans decided the timeline and scope of the FBI investigation. Ultimately Kavanaugh was appointed. Kavanaugh has his lifetime position. What exactly are you complaining Democrats did? 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Ten oz

[Silvestru]

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Democrats didn't seek out Ford. Democrats didn't solicit for individuals to come forward against Kavanaugh. It was Ford who contacted her representatives on her own volition. What exactly are you suggesting Democrats should have done? Republicans controlled the whole situation. Republicans decided when hearings and votes would be held. Republicans decided the timeline and scope of the FBI investigation. Ultimately Kavanaugh was appointed. Kavanaugh has his lifetime position. What exactly are you complaining Democrats did? 

The point is that suggesting that politics of the democrat nature was involved shouldn't result in 8 negative reps per post. People will make their own opinions after reading each member's posts. From my experience from the science section, (and this is all on me) I begin reading a post with 8 negative reps in a dismissive nature. Things are not so right or wrong here. This is a safe place as long as you are respectful and abide by the rules.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Silvestru

[mistermack]

As far as Ford goes, she certainly became a pawn in a game of chess. Only she and Kavanaugh can know how it came about. It doesn't have to be either attempted rape, or a pure invention on her part. It could have started out harmlessly.

Every day, in the USA, there will be teenage boys trying it on with teenage girls. Probably thousands a day, or more likely tens of thousands. And vice versa as well. I was groped by girls loads of times, and raped once (if no means no, which in my case it didn't). The vast majority are just a nothing, nobody threatened, hurt or scared. 

Ford could have had such an encounter with Kavanaugh, and thought no more about it for 34 years. Then, her marriage is in trouble, she's in an emotional marriage counselling session, and she brings it up for sympathy. Embroidering it a bit. And the ball is then rolling. The little lie gets bigger as events take over.

That's just as likely, as the complete fabrication story, or the attempted rape hypothesis. 

 

[iNow]

I didn't neg rep you, but I've seen a trend about the types of posts that seem to generate them for you. It's when you decide conspiratorial thinking is okay, or when you speculate and post about completely unfounded things like this: 

45 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Then, her marriage is in trouble, she's in an emotional marriage counselling session, and she brings it up for sympathy. Embroidering it a bit. And the ball is then rolling. The little lie gets bigger as events take over.

Also, embellishing may have been a better word choice since embroidering sounds like she was knitting a doily. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by iNow

[mistermack]

I'm just making the point that nobody knows. I clearly said "could have". She says one thing, he says the opposite. Either one could be lying. Or both could be lying. It's a relevant third possibility, and stuff like that happens all the time. There are other possibilities too. 

I was just responding to Ten Oz taking exception to her being a labelled a shill. It didn't need to be that, is what I'm saying. 

You tell one little lie, and it gets out of hand. I know, I've SEEN Fawlty Towers. 

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You tell one little lie, and it gets out of hand.

And yet... even the suggestion that she’s lying is itself speculative and unfounded. 

[mistermack]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

And yet... even the suggestion that she’s lying is itself speculative and unfounded. 

Well, I find the idea that nobody's lying even more ludicrous. But that seems to be the PC position I should be adopting to please some people. That's the silly place the Rep. Senators are at.

Maybe the thread should be entitled "Ooh how awful" and it should be made clear that it's only for tut-tutting, and suggesting any other possibilities is not allowed. 

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

And yet... even the suggestion that she’s lying is itself speculative and unfounded. 

The same could be said about Kavanaugh. The difference is you've made up your mind, along with others.

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The same could be said about Kavanaugh. The difference is you've made up your mind, along with others.

No, one can accurately call Kavanaugh a liar because he was caught lying, Here .

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Well, I find the idea that nobody's lying even more ludicrous. But that seems to be the PC position I should be adopting to please some people.

It's not clear to me that anyone here has suggested nobody is lying. Please use the quote feature to educate me on where this "PC position" has been espoused among the people with whom you're actually here interacting, and not some caricature or stereotype of "the left" or "liberals" you may have.

54 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The same could be said about Kavanaugh. The difference is you've made up your mind, along with others.

I am inclined to disbelieve him on this claim, an inclination that was reinforced when he was shown to be lying so many times during his testimony (as Ten Oz has highlighted). 

Yes, I have a predisposition on this situation, but I don't think it's fair of you to suggest my mind is made up (or, that I wouldn't be willing to change it with more information... more information that we should have had were it not for an abbreviated and micromanaged FBI investigation).

[mistermack]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's not clear to me that anyone here has suggested nobody is lying.

I didn't say they had. But how do you argue the other side of the case without her lying? To not ruffle feathers on this thread, there are only three options. Agree with Ford's version, or shut up, or like the Senators, pretend that nobody's lying. (which is probably more derogatory than saying she's been lying)

My own inclination is to doubt Ford's version, going on the timing, her telling of it, and the details. And I'm not prepared to pretend, like the Senators have, that somehow, nobody's lying. 

What they are effectively saying is that the "poor little woman got confused" which is actually more demeaning in my book. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by mistermack

[J.C.MacSwell]

52 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, one can accurately call Kavanaugh a liar because he was caught lying, Here .

 

I am pretty sure he can't be demonstrated to have perjured himself. His characterization of himself as; a serious athlete/student, which clearly he was; that sometimes drank too much, which he admitted to; never blacked out or not remember the events of the previous night, which is likely unprovable either way; are not things that can be readily demonstrated as false. You may not like it, but I don't believe you can prove he lied under oath.

No more than can be demonstrated that Ford had her lying done for her (not saying she directed it) by her Lawyers.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

I am pretty sure he can't be demonstrated to have perjured himself. His characterization of himself as; a serious athlete/student, which clearly he was; that sometimes drank too much, which he admitted to; never blacked out or not remember the events of the previous night, which is likely unprovable either way; are not things that can be readily demonstrated as false. You may not like it, but I don't believe you can prove he lied under oath.

No more than can be demonstrated that Ford had her lying done for her (not saying she directed it) by her Lawyers.

No, he lied to the Senate. 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story. NBC News reached out to Berchem for comment after obtaining a copy of a memo she wrote about the text messages. In a statement to NBC News, Berchem, a partner in the law firm Akin Gump, said: “I understand that President Trump and the U.S. Senate have ordered an FBI investigation into certain allegations of sexual misconduct by the nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I have no direct or indirect knowledge about any of the allegations against him. However, I am in receipt of text messages from a mutual friend of both Debbie and mine that raise questions related to the allegations. I have not drawn any conclusions as to what the texts may mean or may not mean but I do believe they merit investigation by the FBI and the Senate."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

 

fortunately for Kavanaugh the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate any allegations besides Ford's. So the lies he told relating to the Rameriz case weren't part of the limited FBI scope. 

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I am pretty sure he can't be demonstrated to have perjured himself.

It can for his claim that he learned of the allegations from Ramirez via the New Yorker story, despite sharing txt messages with friends asking for testimonials to refute her allegations BEFORE that story was even published.

There are about 4 or 5 other possibilities, but I see that as the most obvious. Here's a useful overview: https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

It can for his claim that he learned of the allegations from Ramirez via the New Yorker story, despite sharing txt messages with friends asking for testimonials to refute her allegations BEFORE that story was even published.

There are about 4 or 5 other possibilities, but I see that as the most obvious. Here's a useful overview: https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress

From your link that is promoting a negative view of Kavanaugh: "There’s a high legal bar for perjury — but this could still influence senators’ decisions"

That sounds like they would tend to agree with me. I don't think he demonstrably perjured himself.

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, he lied to the Senate. 

fortunately for Kavanaugh the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate any allegations besides Ford's. So the lies he told relating to the Rameriz case weren't part of the limited FBI scope. 

So you automatically believe that? Why? I thought you were only advocating unquestioned belief for those who claim to be sexually assaulted.

Edited October 9, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[mistermack]

Kavanaugh didn't necessarily lie. The text messages could easily be in response to rumours.

His answer, "In the New Yorker" could have been accurate for when he first learned of the actual allegations. 

The proof will be if he gets charged. It doesn't look very likely right now.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

From your link that is promoting a negative view of Kavanaugh: "There’s a high legal bar for perjury — but this could still influence senators’ decisions"

That sounds like they would tend to agree with me. I don't think he demonstrably perjured himself.

So you automatically believe that? Why? I thought you were only advocating unquestioned belief for those who claim to be sexually assaulted.

Perjury is your word. I said he lied so therefor it is accurate to call him a liar. If you choose to refer to his lies as mis-characterizations which may or may not meet the legal distinction for perjury that is your choice. iNow posted that it is purely speculative to call Ford a liar. StringJunky post that the same is true for Kavanaugh. My point is that it is not the same. Kavanaugh lied. He liked during his interview on TV and lied to the Senate. Whether or not he can or will be held accountable for the lies changes nothing. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Perjury is your word. I said he lied so therefor it is accurate to call him a liar. If you choose to refer to his lies as mis-characterizations which may or may not meet the legal distinction for perjury that is your choice. iNow posted that it is purely speculative to call Ford a liar. StringJunky post that the same is true for Kavanaugh. My point is that it is not the same. Kavanaugh lied. He liked during his interview on TV and lied to the Senate. Whether or not he can or will be held accountable for the lies changes nothing. 

I can't call him a liar because there is nothing he said that I can point to and say I know for a fact that it is untrue and he knew it when he said it.

Ford has nothing to worry about. With her lack of much tangible testimony it is extremely unlikely that it can be demonstrated that she lied.

She passed with flying colours. Meanwhile he was forced to play hardball in a minefield. You can claim he failed to pass his "job examine" but you would be wrong. He was given little hope after Ford finished her testimony, yet here he is, now on the SCOTUS. He defended what seemed indefensible. He would not be where he is if he had answered more clearly and less evasively, regardless if he was innocent or not.

Edited October 9, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Whether or not he can or will be held accountable for the lies changes nothing. 

Not does JCs speculation about the authors intent on the overview article I shared. 

Let’s go another 15 pages to keep agreeing that we have different opinions on the matter though. 

Not directed at you TO

[NicholaiRen]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I won’t go so far as to say you’re lying, but each of these is untrue. 

Where did it take place?

When did it take place?

Who was there, and if so, why did you pick that story?