MigL

B Kavanough and MeToo

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Huh, things are changing fast, aren't they? I was somewhat surprised that they did not authorize looking into Swetnick as her allegations as well her affidavit seemed to be by far the weakest. 

I am surprised they didn't vote Kavanaugh through last. Even without Flake's they could still have had Pence cast the deciding vote. I suspect there must be additional information we (the public) aren't privy to floating around about Kavanaugh. Even Trump has been unusually restrained over the last few days. I don't buy that it has to do with fear of election backlash because Kavanaugh on the bench would be a massive win for the base. 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I am surprised they didn't vote Kavanaugh through last. Even without Flake's they could still have had Pence cast the deciding vote. I suspect they must be additional information we (the public) aren't privy to floating around about Kavanaugh. Even Trump has been unusually restrained over the last few days. I don't buy that it has to do with fear of election backlash because Kavanaugh on the bench would be a massive win for the base. 

I suspect that they were not certain of the remaining swing votes (Collins and Murkowski). IIRC both backed Flake's request.

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Seems like extreme (and frankly kneejerk) legislation for something that only happens in around 6% of cases. Existing laws seems to cover those cases. 

Especially as the false accusation rate is no higher than for other crimes (e.g. child abuse and homicide). In contrast, exoneration rate is higher for murder than for sexual assault. While an imperfect measure, it could indicate that unjustified conviction rates are higher for murder than for sexual assault (incl. rape). There is also the racial factor with black folks being about 7 times more likely to be sentenced innocently than white folks but "only" 3.5 times more likely than whites for sexual assaults. I.e. demographics could skew numbers a bit. A bit rambly, but if we believe that false allegations of rape or sexual assault are an issue that needs extra attention, then we should clearly also look into homicide (and drug possession).

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Indeed. The fact is he claimed he was legal, because the drinking age was 18. It was not a true statement.

I believe this statement is false, but welcome you to find a direct quote...or barring that a quote that lead you to believe it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I suspect that they were not certain of the remaining swing votes (Collins and Murkowski). IIRC both backed Flake's request.

That explains the Senate's behavior perhaps but not the White House's behavior. Trump isn't above publicly bullying any Republican Senator who doesn't give him what he wants. Winning fights, especially ones with lots of media coverage, at all cost always is Trump's shtick . Not calculating the fallout or worrying about what comes next. If Collins or Murkowski voted against Kavanaugh Trump could have just gone ballistic against them and Democrats then appointed another Judge. By virtue of the way many conservatives feel Kavanaugh has been mistreated his replacement would have iron clad support on day one and the rush to get them through would be fever pitched. I do not think concern about swing votes is what has muted Trump over the last few days. I can't imagine that being enough for him to call Ford a credible witness, appoint the FBI, and joked about Kavanaugh's drinking. Trump appears comfortable with Kavanaugh failing. Perhaps the White House has someone else they like more in more mind, perhaps they have info that on Kavanaugh that renders him not worth fighting harder for, or etc. I don't know but at the moment I am leaning towards a X factor not currently circulating more so than standard Senate concerns about votes or the midterms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That explains the Senate's behavior perhaps but not the White House's behavior.

That is a fair point. I kind of assumed that somehow aides managed to convince Trump that this is "a blessing in disguise" as he put it. But then his overall restrained is actually quite out of character. I wonder what they did to convince him not to go full ballistic on Ford. In the end, it is at least equally possible that they think that the probes won't turn anything up or support their position. Or that there is indeed no grounds for criminal charges...

But then who knows anything nowadays anymore.

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I believe this statement is false, but welcome you to find a direct quote...or barring that a quote that lead you to believe it.

 

I gave you a direct quote. It was the next sentence, which you have omitted.

"The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink"

https://apnews.com/e4a48c01f3bf4094b9faea33cd049729

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Seems Kavanaug knowing made miss leading comments about his second acusser. 

Quote

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. 

Quote

In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”

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

 

 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swansont said:

I gave you a direct quote. It was the next sentence, which you have omitted.

"The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal. Senior year in high school, people were legal to drink"

https://apnews.com/e4a48c01f3bf4094b9faea33cd049729

 

The prep school campus was a 10 minute drive from legal drinking in D.C. for any 18 tear old until 1985.

From your link (bold by me):

"But Kavanaugh was never a legal drinker in that state when he was a high schooler — he was still 17 when that state’s drinking age was increased to 21 on July 1, 1982. Anyone who turned 18 after that date, including Kavanaugh’s classmates, also would have been unable to drink legally in the state."

Also note that it was incorrect. It did not change to 21 on July 1 1982, It changed to 18 years and one day,

Again from the link:

"With the law change in Maryland, where the students lived and where the offending house party presumably would have occurred, no one in Kavanaugh’s class was of legal age unless they were 21."

This is also incorrect. 

 

So access to alcohol did not suddenly change. In any case 17 year old Kavanaugh and 15 year old Ford could not legally drink, but both admitted they did.

 

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So access to alcohol did not suddenly change. 

Access to alcohol was not the point in question.

Quote

In any case 17 year old Kavanaugh and 15 year old Ford could not legally drink, but both admitted they did.

That was the point in question. He claimed he was legal, but was not. Therefore, his claim that he was legal to drink was false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Access to alcohol was not the point in question.

That was the point in question. He claimed he was legal, but was not. Therefore, his claim that he was legal to drink was false.

LOL if you think he claimed he could legally drink at 17.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

LOL if you think he claimed he could legally drink at 17.

No, I think he was claiming he and his classmates could legally drink at 18. Which they could not, in Maryland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, I think he was claiming he and his classmates could legally drink at 18. Which they could not, in Maryland.

Good thing for him he didn't claim that then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, I think he was claiming he and his classmates could legally drink at 18. Which they could not, in Maryland.

At this point several of Kavanaugh's references during his testimony have been proven false. From making false claims about one of his accusers (I linked in my previous post) to mischaracterizing his drinking which fromer classmateshave come forward regarding Here it is plainly clear that Kavanaugh has been dishonest during this process. At this point it is purely argumentative state otherwise. 

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

At this point several of Kavanaugh's references during his testimony have been proven false. From making false claims about one of his accusers (I linked in my previous post) to mischaracterizing his drinking which fromer classmateshave come forward regarding Here it is plainly clear that Kavanaugh has been dishonest during this process. At this point it is purely argumentative state otherwise. 

Also, don't forget the blatant partisanship in his prepared remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Also, don't forget the blatant partisanship in his prepared remarks.

His remarks are true, it is plain to see. It's a wholly Democratic attempt at assassinating his candidacy, by whatever  means. Who else is he going to point the finger at?

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

His remarks are true, it is plain to see. It's a wholly Democratic attempt at assassinating his candidacy. Who else is he going to point the finger at?

Two things. A) even if true, the positions is at least ostensibly non-partisan. Even if they have different leanings, they are not allowed to favour a particular party. By flat-out having a partisan tirade with veiled threats there may be grounds for call to recuse himself in cases involving democrats. To put it into job interview equivalents: he demonstrates that he does not know or care what the job entails. B) His tirade veers off into conspiracy theory land involving somehow revenge by the Clintons. I also have not seen Merrick's tirade about his killed candidacy, which was successfully destroyed by the Republicans, btw. So there is at least a precedence where people can handle things graciously.

To be fair, though, if we disregard what triggered the hearings, the actual performance is what worries me more. While one could still discount the allegations (though his performance made it just a bit harder), the pervasive dishonesty in the characterization of his past, his belligerent manner (which apparently was noted by the bar association during his confirmation as federal judge), his inability to deal with stress and on top apparently inability to at least pretend to be of neutral disposition are worrisome in itself.

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Two things. A) even if true, the positions is at least ostensibly non-partisan. Even if they have different leanings, they are not allowed to favour a particular party. By flat-out having a partisan tirade with veiled threats there may be grounds for call to recuse himself in cases involving democrats. To put it into job interview equivalents: he demonstrates that he does not know or care what the job entails. B) His tirade veers off into conspiracy theory land involving somehow revenge by the Clintons. I also have not seen Merrick's tirade about his killed candidacy, which was successfully destroyed by the Republicans, btw. So there is at least a precedence where people can handle things graciously.

 

Yes, the position itself is supposed to be non-partisan, but this process is wholly political and he''s responding in a like manner. This has got bugger all to to with the spirit of justice and everything to do with each getting their political side into a position of influence. I'm beginning to think Trump is good for America because he's bringing out its true motivations. Neither side is looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, the position itself is supposed to be non-partisan, but this process is wholly political and he''s responding in a like manner. This has got bugger all to to with the spirit of justice and everything to do with each getting their political side into a position of influence. I'm beginning to think Trump is good for America because he's bringing out its true motivations. Neither side is looking good.

If you only noticed now you have not paid attention. Garland was mentioned a couple of times. And you may also contrast with Gorsuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CharonY said:

If you only noticed now you have not paid attention. Garland was mentioned a couple of times. And you may also contrast with Gorsuch.

What do you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

His remarks are true, it is plain to see. It's a wholly Democratic attempt at assassinating his candidacy, by whatever  means. Who else is he going to point the finger at?

In sworn affidavits Ford and her husband claim she named Kavanaugh as her attacker to her therapist back in 2012. If that can be conformed it proves without a shadow of doubt that her claim existed long before the 2016 election and as such isn't "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" or some Democratic conspiracy. Considering that there are now 3 accuses, a bar fight Kavanaugh was implicated in, and former friends have come out claiming Kavanaugh is lying I don't see how one would state it is "plain to see" this is character assassination by democrats. It seems more likely to me at this point that Kavanaugh is or at least use to be an angry belligerent chauvinist prone to aggression when he drinks. 

Also Kavanaugh's friend who was named as present during the Ford attack wrote a book title "Wasted" about his own alcoholism leading up to treatment and in in the book his frequent drinking partner was a Bart O' Kavanaugh . The book was released in 1997 which also well pre-dates the 2016 election.

Edited by Ten oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In sworn affidavits Ford and her husband claim she named Kavanaugh as her attacker to her therapist back in 2012. If that can be conformed it proves without a shadow of doubt that her claim existed long before the 2016 election and as such isn't "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" or some Democratic conspiracy. Considering that there are now 3 accuses, a bar fight Kavanaugh was implicated in, and former friends have come out claiming Kavanaugh is lying I don't see how one would state it is "plain to see" this is character assassination by democrats. It seems more likely to me at this point that Kavanaugh is or at least use to be an angry belligerent chauvinist prone to aggression when he drinks. 

Also Kavanaugh's friend who was named as present during the Ford attack wrote a book title "Wasted" about his own alcoholism leading up to treatment and in in the book his frequent drinking partner was a Bart O' Kavanaugh . The book was released in 1997 which also well pre-dates the 2016 election.

You are not understanding what I said. That post was nothing about the veracity of the claims. It was about the motivation by the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are not understanding what I said. That post was nothing about the veracity of the claims. It was about the motivation by the Democrats.

Why are you separating the two? I think one drives the other. When Democratic Senator Al Franken, a popular and beloved Democrat at that,  was accused of sex misconduct he was out quick without a fight. Whether it is a Republican accused or one of their own Democratic behavior seems fairly consistent on this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Why are you separating the two? I think one drives the other. When Democratic Senator Al Franken, a popular and beloved Democrat at that,  was accused of sex misconduct he was out quick without a fight. Whether it is a Republican accused or one of their own Democratic behavior seems fairly consistent on this issue. 

Whether that is true or not would you do the same if accused of sexual assault? Would you quickly bow out without a fight? Is that what you would advocate in every case?

Even if Ford was 100% honest, and naive enough to claim she was not a pawn of the Democrats, there is significant evidence to show that she was being used by the Democrats, along with Ramirez and Swetnick. Whether this was an orchestrated conspiracy, and on what level, is much less clear.

OTOH, why has Ford not yet been approached by the FBI? Is she ever going to be properly questioned? She agreed to cooperate and now instead she is being mocked by the President of the United States...she deserves to be properly vetted, not mocked publicly.

I also noticed the Democrats are asking that the FBI results are not made public. Any ideas why?

Edited by J.C.MacSwell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Whether that is true or not would you do the same if accused of sexual assault? Would you quickly bow out without a fight? Is that what you would advocate in every case?

This has nothing to do with the context of my post and what I would do is supercilious to this conversation as I am neither a Senator or a SCOTUS nominee nor do I ever intend to run for the Senate or accept a SCOTUS nomination. 

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Even if Ford was 100% honest, and naive enough to claim she was not a pawn of the Democrats, there is significant evidence to show that she was being used by the Democrats, along with Ramirez and Swetnick. 

How is she a pawn of her claims predate the current political environment and Democrats hold themselves to the same standard? What is the evidence?

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OTOH, why has Ford not yet been approached by the FBI? Is she ever going to be properly questioned?

I assume because they are collecting all the related evidence first to beat organize which questions to ask. 

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She agreed to cooperate and now instead she is being mocked by the President of the United States...she deserves to be properly vetted, not mocked publicly.

That is the fault of Republicans and not the fault of Democrats. 

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

also noticed the Democrats are asking that the FBI results are not made public. Any ideas why?

Transparency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.