Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: ams288
Hopefully they’ll get him to say this under oath on Thursday. Then any woman who had *consensual* sex with him during that time could come forward and prove he’s a liar.
Anybody could come forward and make that claim, but how on Earth would you prove a consensual sexual encounter?
Quote: ams288
Hopefully they’ll get him to say this under oath on Thursday. Then any woman who had *consensual* sex with him during that time could come forward and prove he’s a liar.
I think you mean, “Because any woman willing to say she had consensual sex with him during that time could come forward and state that he is a liar which proves it to my satisfaction.”
I think it’s curious that what one category of people should say constitutes absolute proof while what another category of people should say has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
As expected: Crickets!Quote: SanchoPanzaHow in the world could you know what penchants Judge had 36 years ago?Quote: ams288Quote: SanchoPanzaHe's already done that, and the accusor has not:
"Senate Judiciary
Verified account @senjudiciary
Staff contacted Mark Judge and obtained a statement under penalty of felony. Staff contacted third person allegedly at party described by Dr. Ford and obtained a statement under penalty of felony. Staff contacted fourth person allegedly at party.
10:18 AM - 20 Sep 2018" twitter
Oh cool. Did they ask him about his penchant for getting high school girls drunk and having multiple guys f*** them while they were incapacitated?
No?
Quote: TigerWuAnybody could come forward and make that claim, but how on Earth would you prove a consensual sexual encounter?
I actually think it’d be way easier to prove a consensual sexual encounter than a drunken non-consensual one.
In high school, you have friends who know who you’re banging. People talk.
Hell, I still remember one day in my junior year of high school when everyone found out that Susan lost her virginity to Corey over the weekend (those are real names). I’m still Facebook friends with Susan. She has two little kids now (not with Corey).
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs expected: Crickets!
If you know your post isn’t worthy of a response and expect crickets, why bother?
Seems slightly pointless to me!
Quote: ams288
Hopefully they’ll get him to say this under oath on Thursday. Then any woman who had *consensual* sex with him during that time could come forward and prove he’s a liar.
I thought this was a Senate interview transcript. They're on about taking testimony from people today.
I just saw part of this, and it's an interview with a fox news woman, not testimony. Just to clarify the source.
Quote: ams288I actually think it’d be way easier to prove a consensual sexual encounter than a drunken non-consensual one.
In high school, you have friends who know who you’re banging. People talk.
Hell, I still remember one day in my junior year of high school when everyone found out that Susan lost her virginity to Corey over the weekend (those are real names). I’m still Facebook friends with Susan. She has two little kids now (not with Corey).
Yeah, but would you remember Brandon or Jessica?
I remember hearing plenty of stories in high school of who did what and this and that. People at that age also tend to lie sometimes. Wasn’t completely uncommon for one kid to tell another he made out with some chick that weekend, then the other kid says he f***ed her, because kids like starting rumors. Then neither the boy nor girl dismiss the f***ing occurred, or even if they do — that’s not what people remember.
I remember who went out with whom, but I’m also quite a bit younger than these 50+ year olds. I can name names of who I believe did stuff with whom, but it’s just as likely those things didn’t happen. Now if you ask me about people whom I wasn’t particularly tight with in my group of friends, I don’t think I could even offer a guess.
As far as an investigation goes by the FBI, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, assuming the following are true:
- That’s common procedure
- There’s credibility or reasonable suspicion that it occurred
- If the accuser is found to be making stuff up, they get punished accordingly
But it’s going to be pretty damn tough to prove anything happened, short of Kavanaugh having had a diary where he wrote about it way back when.
Quote: Mission146
In effect, tarnishing someone's name with some he-said/she-said is perfectly allowable in this country, and dare I say, encouraged by the #MeToo movement.
.
But why then are there so many high profile targets up and running around, They have money and political power and enemies. All reasons to be a target. We have Bill Clinton but not Obama, Did no one hate Obama enough? We have Trump but not Bush jr. Why would you even consider Bill Cosby before other easier targets with money?
I know several good targets from my political perspective who aren't touched by this stuff. Why is that?
Quote: rxwineBut why then are there so many high profile targets up and running around, They have money and political power and enemies. All reasons to be a target. We have Bill Clinton but not Obama, Did no one hate Obama enough? We have Trump but not Bush jr. Why would you even consider Bill Cosby before other easier targets with money?
I know several good targets from my political perspective who aren't touched by this stuff. Why is that?
Only thing I can think of is because you’re probably not going to make an accusation against someone you’ve never even been in contact with, whereas you can if you have had contact with that person. EG: If you went to high school with person X, and not person Y, it’s going to be tough to have any credibility if you accuse Y. If you accuse X, at least you were at the same school as that person and it’s possible.
Quote: ams288I actually think it’d be way easier to prove a consensual sexual encounter than a drunken non-consensual one.
In high school, you have friends who know who you’re banging. People talk.
Hell, I still remember one day in my junior year of high school when everyone found out that Susan lost her virginity to Corey over the weekend (those are real names). I’m still Facebook friends with Susan. She has two little kids now (not with Corey).
What’s that word that describes something when you say you think it happened, but you weren’t there to actually see it? I can’t put my finger on it. That one where you hear someone talk about it, so you start saying it happened?
Quote: rxwineBut why then are there so many high profile targets up and running around, They have money and political power and enemies. All reasons to be a target. We have Bill Clinton but not Obama, Did no one hate Obama enough? We have Trump but not Bush jr. Why would you even consider Bill Cosby before other easier targets with money?
I know several good targets from my political perspective who aren't touched by this stuff. Why is that?
Was the #MeToo movement before or after Bush? I can’t quite remember? I want to say I don’t remember the #MeToo movement from High School, which is where I was when the second Bush won office.
Anyway, I’m not suggesting that any of the allegations are untrue, how the hell would I know? I’m suggesting that we have a societal flaw when the mere making of an accusation about something that can no longer be absolutely proven gets to decide things.
Kav worked for Ken Starr and really wanted to play hardball with Bill Clinton wanting to ask some really disgusting questions
Bill Clinton has got to be smiling as Kav is now in the hot seat
"Twenty years ago, Kavanaugh, then an associate counsel in the office of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, submitted a sanctimonious memo that proposed a series of salacious queries for then-President Clinton about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Noting that he was “strongly opposed” to giving Clinton any “break” in the questioning, Kavanaugh wrote, “He should be forced to account” for all that he did, “and to defend his actions.” He then suggested 10 questions, including this one: “If Monica Lewinsky says that you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”
For Democrats, the chance to raise equally explicit questions about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee is a delicious turn of the screw. Kavanaugh, after all, set the table for the cruel partisan politics of personal destruction his fellow Republicans now decry. Two decades later, there’s an obvious lesson in consequences: Live by the sword, and die by it."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-chaos-must-putting-smile-bill-clinton-face/jpBNx4f0L4ItqT7tvRs5ZJ/story.html
Quote: beachbumbabsThere are things to consider, I think.
The first thing that I want to do is apologize for what you endured and state that my opinion of the Kavanaugh situation has nothing to do with any of that. Yours was obviously an unexpected, traumatic and terrible experience that should never happen to anybody.
Quote:This didn't happen in isolation. There was an entire culture of privilege and superiority. The 100 Keg Club. "What happens at GP stays at GP". All-male "tit and clit" secret society at Yale. Trains getting pulled. Animal House type frat. Private, high-dollar schools of ancestry and destiny.
I'll tell you what strikes me as funny, I think it's stupid to an almost adorable degree for a woman smart enough to get into Yale to believe that you're going to go into coed college drinking parties without the risk of anything sexual happening. I'm not saying, "Blame the victim," is in anyway appropriate, but the naivety that I would have to be willing to accept could exist in someone smart enough to make Yale to think sexual things don't happen at collegiate dorm drinking parties is almost mind-numbing for me to try to do. I'm also not saying that anything should be expected to happen to someone without that person's consent, but the notion that you're not going to witness anything sexual or see anyone's genitalia at a dormitory drinking party...HA!
I mean, we had high school parties that it was nothing to see two people screwing on a living room couch in front of everybody. I saw one guy nailing a girl up against a wall on the landing in a stairwell in school once. God save me from ever being as stupidly naive as I am supposed to expect Yale attendees to be capable of being.
Without six days of talking to lawyers, I actually remember a T-shirt that a friend of mine always wore in Elementary School that said, "Co-Ed Naked," so I was actually aware that collegiates would have parties in which they were naked around one another before I even knew what a blowjob was. Crazy, isn't it?
Quote:There was massive drinking in all cases I've heard about. Impaired judgment, loss of inhibition and discretion, hazy recollection, blackouts, puking contests.
Sounds like the average weekend when I was in High School, though I don't remember any, "Puking contests." Puking was never seen as a desirable outcome, much less a competition.
Quote:It's entirely possible NOBODY is lying. There is no particular reason for Kavanaugh or Judge to remember that high school party over any other. From THEIR point of view, they didn't get laid, one drunk party runs into the next, girls were usually invited, he got turned down. Next. It's all in fun. 5 minutes, no more time needed than a bathroom break, who would notice them gone?
Agreed.
Quote:From HER point of view, 15 is a very different age than 17, she was maybe not drinking (I haven't heard whether she was drunk, but she says they were extremely drunk), and she was trapped by older, bigger guys who were being forceful. Yeah, SHE'S going to remember it.
I also agree with this. My issue is how can that disqualify him from the SCOTUS, or anything else, when there is no way she can prove it?
Quote:The mistake he made was the flat denial. If he had said, "I don't remember this happening. It doesn't sound like me. But I was drinking a lot that year, there were girls at our parties, I could have gone too far with someone, I guess. Nothing happened, so there was nothing to remember about it."
"I've grown up and learned better, left that teenage stuff behind, and it doesn't change the hard work I've done my whole adult life to become qualified for this job."
If she can't prove it, I really see no reason for him to admit that it even could be true. What is there to gain by admitting to something that the other side cannot prove? You don't think that if he did admit it and apologized that nobody would be saying that disqualifies him from being on the SCOTUS? Of course some people would still maintain that it's disqualifying, that's the point of the whole thing.
Quote:Too much to expect him to be gracious enough to apologize (which he could have done without admitting guilt, as above), since she was apparently traumatized whether he remembers doing it or not, but it would have been the perfect way to show maturity, social conscience, and humility.
If he legitimately doesn't believe it happened (and I don't know if he does or not) what would there be for him to apologize for? "I apologize that you think that something that didn't happen actually happened and that your incorrect recollection of events has impacted you?" That seems pretty condescending. Better to just not apologize if he thinks nothing happened.
Quote:If he had come to answer with a response like this, it would be over and he would have been confirmed today. That's the part I don't understand. There's every plausible opportunity for it to have happened.
Not a chance in Hell. Anything from him short of outright denial is going to result in people calling for him not to be confirmed on the grounds that he was accused of sexual assault and didn't deny doing it.
We're dealing with caricatures of people here.
Quote:You can say that's kind of how Franken approached his accusations, and you'd be right: he's still gone. But that's where the scales are unbalanced. The Democrats are condemning anyone who ever made a mistake. The Republicans don't force their people out over personal flaws or offenses towards women (these days). That goes back at least to Anita Hill, probably further. They seem to reserve their scorn and shunning for their members who hit on boys, if at all.
I think the scales are also unbalanced because there is a picture of Franken doing one of the things he was accused of, which is something the first two Kavanaugh accusers do not have: actual proof.
Quote:So Kavanaugh should have (imo) done as above, and he'd have lost nothing.
Same thing would have covered the degenerency at Yale. He's stinking drunk, drops trou on a girl known to be shy, they all have a huge laugh, over and done. He'll never think of it again.
Except SHE'S going to remember it very differently. She's saving herself, is shy and introverted, hasn't seen or touched a naked, aroused man in her life, is trying to be social and learning to hold her drink as a freshman, and unexpectedly has THAT in her face in front of a crowd of new friends and potential dates. When she tries to get away from it, she touches him there pushing him.
Again, this is where I have to be willing to accept the ridiculous. Not to blame the victim, but she's running around getting trashed at college parties and she's never heard, even second-hand, that genitalia sometimes makes an appearance.
I recall my first, "Party," when I was twelve years old. I recall it perfectly without the help of six days of the company of attorneys, and believe it or not, this wasn't even traumatic. First, we smoked a bunch of weed with her older brother, her mother and her mother's live-in boyfriend. I want to say there were eight minors in total, which includes the brother and sister. The mother and live-in boyfriend then went to the neighboring bedroom, screwed audibly behind a closed door, then presumably fell asleep.
We kind of giggled quietly at the sounds of them screwing. After that, we proceeded to go through the case of beer the mother had got for us, though I don't actually remember getting drunk from it. Beyond that, we did the usual Spin the Bottle that would become a staple at these sorts of events and then the older ones played a little strip poker whereas a few of the younger ones (myself included) declined to play but remained to observe because there wasn't really anywhere else in the house we were supposed to be at this time of the night.
So, that's my memory of my first party. Got high, maybe buzzed but not drunk (though it's hard to tell when you're high) found out that I don't like weed very much and saw some boobies and butts. No big deal.
Quote:Nice introduction to sex and male equipment for a girl who's been protected from it all her life. Yeah, she's going to remember that moment, even if she didn't circle the date on her calendar. Humiliation and shame really engraves a memory.
I guess maybe the first part is the issue. I really think it's kind of a sad upbringing when incidental contact with a pee-pee, as an adult, is the most traumatic event in a person's life and has a lasting impact for three-and-a-half decades. I pity the upbringing she has and pity the type of psyche that said upbringing likely resulted in her having that such a thing should be so bothersome.
I remember our favorite high school party was everyone would drink whiskey and get high, George Dickel Rye, preferably, and then we would all strip naked (if it was guys AND girls) and goof off in my friend's pool. I didn't partake in the weed because I'd smoked it enough times by this point to know that I definitely didn't like it, but I got plenty trashed drunk. There was plenty of incidental genital contact there because we're all tossing one another around the pool, lifting each other up on one another's shoulders to play chicken and other types of games that result in incidental contact with genitals when the participants are naked. Again, no big deal.
It's really tough to remember a party with two genders and more than four people in which not a single person exposed himself/herself or had sex with anybody else at some point. If I'm honest, I'd have to say that I don't remember any such parties from my high school days, but college was where we actually seemed to be more careful about that sort of thing. Of course, I worked a lot more in college and went to fewer parties, so maybe it's a sample sizing thing. I was also passable for 21 all throughout college, so I guess another factor is that most of my drinking was done in bars by that time.
Quote:So, I don't think it's out of the question that everyone is being truthful.
Okay, so if he doesn't recall it from his perspective, why should he apologize for it when any such apology is going to be perceived as an admission?
Quote:One other thing to consider: I read at least once that his contemporaries said he was quiet, polite, and nice, EXCEPT that he was a different person when he was drunk. Got loud, gregarious, wild. Liked women. Sorry, I don't know where I saw that. Maybe someone else has a quote.
I saw that too. I could also say whatever I want about anyone I went to High School or College with, but that doesn't change that individual events either provably happened or did not provably happen.
No, if someone’s accused of something they didn’t do, they aren’t going to say they might have done it, because that’s absolutely retarded. And if anyone says they might have done it, they’re going to get absolutely slaughtered. That’s practically a confession.
I theoretically could have flown to Columbia in March, loaded myself up with a few keys of coke, flown back to Vegas, sold it on the streets to tourists, then conspired with the Taliban or some s*** and have laundered a bunch of their money, but I’ve just forgotten it all....but if I’m accused of doing that, no way in hell am I going to say I might have done that. Even though it’s still possible that it all happened and I just don’t remember any of it.
Quote: Mission146Was the #MeToo movement before or after Bush? I can’t quite remember? I want to say I don’t remember the #MeToo movement from High School, which is where I was when the second Bush won office.
Anyway, I’m not suggesting that any of the allegations are untrue, how the hell would I know? I’m suggesting that we have a societal flaw when the mere making of an accusation about something that can no longer be absolutely proven gets to decide things.
IMO, there's a lot of pent-up energy in movements where justice is denied and the pendulum swings hard for awhile in the opposite direction when it corrects.
When abused slaves are freed do you really think they want to immediately start rendering fair trials and fair verdicts, things they were denied? No, likely they have to resist kicking the living shit out of their former slave masters. That's a natural reaction.
So when women get equal credibility in being believed, there is also an over correction.. It won't last forever. The aggrieved have anger and resentment, and that will take time to resolve.
Quote: rxwineIMO, there's a lot of pent-up energy in movements where justice is denied and the pendulum swings hard for awhile in the opposite direction when it corrects.
I agree with that, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to try to course correct when it goes too far the other way. And, in other less talked about ways, we still haven’t gone far enough vis-a-vis gender equality.
Quote:When abused slaves are freed do you really think they want to immediately start rendering fair trials and fair verdicts, things they were denied? No, likely they have to resist kicking the living shit out of their former slave masters. That's a natural reaction.
The nice thing about the capacity for abstract thought is that we can often overcome our primal urges, not always, but usually.
Quote:So when women get equal credibility in being believed, there is also an over correction.. It won't last forever. The aggrieved have anger and resentment, and that will take time to resolve.
I agree, I just think it’s as important to course correct now as it was before. I also, in general terms, think that some of our legal principles, such as statutes of limitations, should somehow also apply in a greater social context.
Here is a listing of some of the politicians who attended Yale:
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (B.A. '74)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas (B.A. '73)
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (B.A. '66)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. (B.A. '82)
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. (B.A. '64 J.D. )
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. (B.A. '65)
Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va. (B.A. '96 J.D. '01)
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas (B.A. '68)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. (B.A. '78)
Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky. (B.A. '69)Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Col. (J.D. '73)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. (J.D. '70?)
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. (J.D. M.A.)
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Cal. (M.A.)
Rep.Brett Guthrie, R-Ky. (M.A. '97)
Rep. David Price, D-N.C. (B.S. '64 Ph.D '69)
Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C. (J.D. '70)
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Ok. (M.A. '74)
Rep. David Wu, D-Ore. (J.D. '82)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton D-D.C
Lots of democrats.
There is also a painting of Kavanaugh in an unfavorable light because of the high school he attended. Should the same be done with Ford because of the high school she attended?
Here are some quotes from her yearbook during the years she attended:
"Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.”
“No longer confining ourselves to the walls of Landon and Prep, we plunged into the waters of St. John and Gonzaga with much success.”
“Beach week culminated the year for those of us lucky enough to go. With school and our minds in temporary recess, we were able to release all those troubling inhibitions of the past year. While dancing in the middle of coastal Highway, Ann [redacted last name] and friends picked up some men who passed out in their apartment…”
“Other seniors preferred to expand their horizons and date younger men, usually sophomores, who could bring the vitality and freshness of innocence to a relationship.”
“And there were always parties to celebrate any occasion. Although these parties are no doubt unforgettable, they are only a memory lapse for most, since loss of consciousness is often an integral part of the party scene.”
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
Quote: FleaswatterIn an earlier post there was an allusion to debauchery at Yale.
Here is a listing of some of the politicians who attended Yale:
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (B.A. '74)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas (B.A. '73)
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (B.A. '66)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. (B.A. '82)
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. (B.A. '64 J.D. )
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. (B.A. '65)
Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va. (B.A. '96 J.D. '01)
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas (B.A. '68)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. (B.A. '78)
Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky. (B.A. '69)Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Col. (J.D. '73)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. (J.D. '70?)
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. (J.D. M.A.)
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Cal. (M.A.)
Rep.Brett Guthrie, R-Ky. (M.A. '97)
Rep. David Price, D-N.C. (B.S. '64 Ph.D '69)
Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C. (J.D. '70)
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Ok. (M.A. '74)
Rep. David Wu, D-Ore. (J.D. '82)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton D-D.C
Lots of democrats.
Yawn
So What.
I pretty much grew up on the Yale campus
I have a lot of memories of Yale as a youngster as my father was getting his PHD
The parties were great. That's what I remember the best were all the weekend get to togethers among the students
It was all good clean fun.
The Chinese students Association
I will continue to listen to sexual victims
Quote: FleaswatterIn an earlier post there was an allusion to debauchery at Yale.
Here is a listing of some of the politicians who attended Yale:
I understand your point, but isn't the bar highest for 1 Supreme court position? 1 of 9 people serving for life as the third branch of government?
Quote: rxwineI understand your point, but isn't the bar highest for 1 Supreme court position? 1 of 9 people serving for life as the third branch of government?
I’m guessing he wouldn’t have drank as a high schooler at all had being on the SCOTUS been seen by him as an attainable goal then or something that he was specifically striving for.
Besides, if you’re looking for someone who has spent their whole life not only beyond reproach, but beyond even allegations of reproach, you’ll find yourself sadly wanting. I believe even Jesus Christ stood accused.
Quote: FinsRuleThe last person Trump nominated got through fine. I’m sure he can find someone else.
I agree with you, but that’s not the point.
Suppose for a second that the allegations are untrue, and I’m not saying they are, but if they were, who’s the victim?
Honestly, if I was Trump, I’d just find the most staunchly conservative woman that I could find and nominate her instead.
Quote: Mission146Besides, if you’re looking for someone who has spent their whole life not only beyond reproach, but beyond even allegations of reproach, you’ll find yourself sadly wanting. I believe even Jesus Christ stood accused.
If you believe his mom was a 'virgin' story, I suppose you can believe the rest.
Quote: rxwineIf you believe his mom was a 'virgin' story, I suppose you can believe the rest.
How would it feel to be Joseph? The one time I knew the lady that I was with had an African-American ex-boyfriend was intimidating enough...what would it be like to try to follow God's action?
I mean, that's the highest office in the land. My accusation should keep her out of the running. Right?
#METOO
Quote: MaxPenIn the summer of 88' I was at the pool with Michelle Obama and she whipped out her penis. I am willing to testify to Congress should she decide to run for President.
I mean, that's the highest office in the land. My accusation should keep her out of the running. Right?
#METOO
Everything you post keeps you out of the running
Quote: Mission146I agree with you, but that’s not the point.
Suppose for a second that the allegations are untrue, and I’m not saying they are, but if they were, who’s the victim?
Honestly, if I was Trump, I’d just find the most staunchly conservative woman that I could find and nominate her instead.
There are those who will seek fame & fortune, and there are political gamesmanships. It is unfortunate that these events can cause grid locks and can be abused, but they are necessary (perhaps necessary evil) because they provide a form of check & balance in order for the democracy to survive.
With regarding to FBI investigation or FBI background check or whatever you want to call it for job seekers – it is basically a fact finding or discovery mission, but it does NOT decide on “guilt or innocent.” The “guilt or innocent” determination function belongs to the public and applicable political bodies, and since this is a political matter and NOT a legal matter, the standard of proof is sadly and realistically based on individual moral and ethical values and other self interest agendas. Apply your own standard, but please be aware that, for better or worse, the society moral & ethical values and the health of your democracy are reflection of the standard of proof you are applying here.
There will be unfortunate delay, and reputation of both the accused and accuser can possibly be damaged, but for the sake of democracy, the FBI investigation/background check on Kavanaugh regarding sexual assaults must be allowed.
Screening candidates for a SCOTUS life-time appointment position, an extremely important position where one can decide issues that impact the daily life of entire nation for generation if not generations to come, does not happen regularly; so a delay of a few days, or many months to gather and evaluate the facts by the FBI is worth the wait for the sake democracy. And if anyone who wants to be a justice on the SCOTUS, then one must accept the scrutiny demands by the citizens and the nomination process, and must also accept the fact that his/her reputation and private live are subjected to heavy criticism by the public and the political bodies.
This process is entirely political at this point and seems to be a lot less about the allegations than about getting the nominee through or getting him derailed by any means possible. That may not be fair to either of the parties--Ford or Kavanaugh--but we can hardly even agree on the path forward between folks here who are relatively friendly.
I'm okay with a couple of days of the FBI checking in to things, but people have been put under oath already...so the question I will ask is exactly how much looking into the issue is enough?
I think the answer from one side will be no amount is enough and the other is there has already been enough.
This really isn't about #Metoo.
Quote: 777With regarding to FBI investigation or FBI background check or whatever you want to call it for job seekers – it is basically a fact finding or discovery mission, but it does NOT decide on “guilt or innocent.” The “guilt or innocent” determination function belongs to the public and applicable political bodies, and since this is a political matter and NOT a legal matter, the standard of proof is sadly and realistically based on individual moral and ethical values and other self interest agendas. Apply your own standard, but please be aware that, for better or worse, the society moral & ethical values and the health of your democracy are reflection of the standard of proof you are applying here.
There are no facts to find as relates the first accusation or the second one, and in fact, the only accusation that should actually matter is the one that slimy, greasy cueball Avenatti claims to have proof of. If the proof exists, good, let's have it.
Anyway, I think what you're trying to say is that the standard of proof is, "None whatsoever," and everyone can just believe whatever he/she wants to believe and may freely take those self-serving beliefs and treat them as fact.
My standard of proof is definitely going to be greater than someone saying something happened. As several have pointed out, including me, anyone can say anything happened provided they are careful enough to not say anything that can be absolutely proven wrong.
Let's also not have approximate dates of the events, either. It'd be bad if the accused were provably out of state during the date range specified. I'm not suggesting a need for a specific date and time after thirty years, but personally, I can tell you what month and year events of minor importance took place in my life, so I imagine if anything, "Traumatic," had ever happened to me, I could narrow that down to probably a week.
Quote:There will be unfortunate delay, and reputation of both the accused and accuser can possibly be damaged, but for the sake of democracy, the FBI investigation/background check on Kavanaugh regarding sexual assaults must be allowed.
What. Can. The. FBI. Possibly. Prove?
This has nothing to do with democracy, it has only to do with politically convenient stalling on the off-chance the Democrats take the Senate in November. If that happens, then they can just reject Kavanaugh (and any future nominees) outright. The entire purpose of this whole thing is to take a big, fat, steaming, stinky dump on Democracy and the entire mechanism by which our political system works...again...relative to the first and second accusers.
Even if the reputation of the accusers is damaged, they can just set up a GoFundMe and would probably make a couple million overnight. Not to mention the book deals.
Quote:Screening candidates for a SCOTUS life-time appointment position, an extremely important position where one can decide issues that impact the daily life of entire nation for generation if not generations to come, does not happen regularly; so a delay of a few days, or many months to gather and evaluate the facts by the FBI is worth the wait for the sake democracy. And if anyone who wants to be a justice on the SCOTUS, then one must accept the scrutiny demands by the citizens and the nomination process, and must also accept the fact that his/her reputation and private live are subjected to heavy criticism by the public and the political bodies.
Three Questions:
1.) What happens if the entire body of the SCOTUS dies/retires before we find a way to put a single nominee in there?
2.) Does deliberately steering the President to nominate someone of a certain gender protect the democracy?
3.) Even if BOTH the first and second allegations were true, and he admitted to them, how would that disqualify him from being on the SCOTUS?
Quote: RonC
This process is entirely political at this point and seems to be a lot less about the allegations than about getting the nominee through or getting him derailed by any means possible. That may not be fair to either of the parties--Ford or Kavanaugh--but we can hardly even agree on the path forward between folks here who are relatively friendly.
These allegations were never about anything aside from getting the process derailed by any means necessary. At least, as relates the Blasey Ford and Ramirez allegations.
The fact is that the job of the SCOTUS is to, "Interpret," the law...which really means to try to bend a centuries old document to adhere to a self-serving interpretation that really is more reflective of their personal opinion on the matter than anything truly judicial...but that's because the #ConstitutionSucks badly enough to allow for such a framework.
Either way, since the entire position is purportedly a legal one, then the legal standard of proof should apply to the nomination process. As far as Blasey Ford and Ramirez are concerned, they have ZERO proof. None. No FBI investigation has any chance of uncovering anything that would even remotely qualify as legal proof, unless the parents at that house party had videotape going on in the bedroom while they were gone...or the dormitory at Yale that night had some video. Of course, we can forget about the former since Blasey Ford doesn't recall whose house it was much less what night it happened. I guess the Ramirez case is a little more hopeful for proof, because she at least puts the event in a specific physical place. I doubt there was any video going, though.
Quote:I'm okay with a couple of days of the FBI checking in to things, but people have been put under oath already...so the question I will ask is exactly how much looking into the issue is enough?
I think the answer from one side will be no amount is enough and the other is there has already been enough.
This really isn't about #Metoo.
As relates the first and second accusations, I would suggest that zero minutes looking into them would probably be sufficient, since they fundamentally can't be proven to a satisfactory legal standard.
I would also encourage everyone to watch out for the slippery slope that merely being accused of something is enough to result in real-world consequences. We may be talking about people filling important Governmental roles now, but that's all fun and games until this kind of standard becomes sufficient to adversely impact the day-to-day lives of, "Normal," people. Oh, shit, Jimmy is getting that promotion over Jessica, can we get Kimmy to accuse Jimmy of getting a little handsy with her at some place that wouldn't have a camera on it on some unspecified date?
I agree that's it's not about #MeToo, in fact, it takes a dump all over #MeToo. It serves only to invalidate #MeToo by turning it into a political weapon as opposed to what it was originally intended to be.
2. No
3. It shows that he has a lack of good judgment. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify anyone, but I like my Supreme Court justices to have made good decisions in their lives.
Quote: FinsRule1. Not realistic
2. No
3. It shows that he has a lack of good judgment. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify anyone, but I like my Supreme Court justices to have made good decisions in their lives.
1.) It's totally plausible with everything political being about one-upping the way that it is. The Senate is of a different political party than the President, boom, reject every nominee the President rolls out. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't.
Some would argue that the notion of a lifetime appointment is kind of a stupid one as it is the precise reason we don't have a monarchy in the first place. Essentially, the SCOTUS is partially enabled to rule the country from the judicial bench and it is the lifetime nature of the appointment that makes it so consequential. Again, the #ConstitutionSucks, so there you go.
2.) Well, let's suggest that the first unprovable accusation had been enough to keep Kavanaugh off the SCOTUS: With that being the case, you don't think that there might be someone willing to speak out against any SCOTUS nominee, since no actual proof is required, who happens to have a penis? I think it's perfectly conceivable. Especially since it now seems that the implication is that damn near every guy at Georgetown Prep during those years, or whatever that school is called, was constantly raping people.
3.) Relative to the first and second accusations: Because of two things he allegedly did while drunk and a kid? That totally invalidates all of his legal and judicial experience and demonstrates he's a bad decision-maker? What if he admitted to the first but not the second? He was a minor when the first one happened.
Like I said before, it didn’t happen to Gorsuch. Maybe it would have happened to Garland, I guess we’ll never know...
Quote: Mission146There are no facts to find as relates the first accusation or the second one, and in fact, the only accusation that should actually matter is the one that slimy, greasy cueball Avenatti claims to have proof of. If the proof exists, good, let's have it.
Anyway, I think what you're trying to say is that the standard of proof is, "None whatsoever," and everyone can just believe whatever he/she wants to believe and may freely take those self-serving beliefs and treat them as fact.
My standard of proof is definitely going to be greater than someone saying something happened. As several have pointed out, including me, anyone can say anything happened provided they are careful enough to not say anything that can be absolutely proven wrong.
Let's also not have approximate dates of the events, either. It'd be bad if the accused were provably out of state during the date range specified. I'm not suggesting a need for a specific date and time after thirty years, but personally, I can tell you what month and year events of minor importance took place in my life, so I imagine if anything, "Traumatic," had ever happened to me, I could narrow that down to probably a week.
What. Can. The. FBI. Possibly. Prove?
This has nothing to do with democracy, it has only to do with politically convenient stalling on the off-chance the Democrats take the Senate in November. If that happens, then they can just reject Kavanaugh (and any future nominees) outright. The entire purpose of this whole thing is to take a big, fat, steaming, stinky dump on Democracy and the entire mechanism by which our political system works...again...relative to the first and second accusers.
Even if the reputation of the accusers is damaged, they can just set up a GoFundMe and would probably make a couple million overnight. Not to mention the book deals.
Three Questions:
1.) What happens if the entire body of the SCOTUS dies/retires before we find a way to put a single nominee in there?
2.) Does deliberately steering the President to nominate someone of a certain gender protect the democracy?
3.) Even if BOTH the first and second allegations were true, and he admitted to them, how would that disqualify him from being on the SCOTUS?
Trumpers and evangelicals here and elsewhere had openly stated that the racist, sexist, rapist and con-artist Trump character flaws and incompetents can be ignored or are acceptable for political reasons. So yes, you can apply the standard of the trumpers and the evangelicals, or you take a higher ground … And as I have stated before, the society moral & ethical values and the health of your democracy are reflection of the standard of proof you are applying. What is your standard and compare it with the standard of trumpers and evangelicals?
It had been shown that many also lied under oath, so few simple questions by senate judicial committee without any fact checking and attempt to corroborate evidences are not sufficient. FBI investigation/background check is need, and it most likely will be completed within days, but it may also take longer if additional works are required for additional fact checkings, verifications or to corroborate with witness statements or evidences.
In the end, truth cannot be determined due to insufficient evidences, but the FBI investigation would somehow give an assurance of a transparent process and an assurance that the GOP and the White House did not hide anything from the public.
Political gamesmanship is a part of the democratic process, so yes, it is about our democracy. Rightly or wrongly, people can profit from anything under sun, and you cannot simply throw the democracy under the bus just because few opportunists or bad apples.
We’ve survived and dealt with many national emergencies and natural disasters, and Marshall Law, curfew and other liberty restrictions were imposed on many of these emergencies. And there are other yet to be named solutions that can be utilized depending on the nature of each emergencies.
Deliberately influencing the public, the Presidents, and other politicians is no different than lobbying actions, and it is a part of the democratic process. Well, the Trumpers and evangelicals are allowed to accept the racist, sexist, rapist and con-artist Trump character flaws and incompetents for political reasons certainly indicates that our democratic principle is protected, but it does not necessary that our democracy healthy or is a good one.
Qualification does not limit to only intellectual quality. And there are other factors such as moral, ethical and many other qualities must be considered. If America with of over 300 million citizens cannot find candidate with high intellectual, moral, ethical qualities for the utmost top judicial position then there is certainly something seriously wrong with America.
Quote: FinsRuleI just think this whole argument is a fallacy. Since this is happening to one person, this will now happen to everyone.
Not necessarily everyone, but that it could happen to anyone that somebody wants it to happen to. I’m just saying if you want to make a decades old accusation, or really any dated accusation relative to whatever the situation is, there really needs to be some minimum evidentiary standard to be allowed to do that.
Quote: mission
Three Questions:
1.) What happens if the entire body of the SCOTUS dies/retires before we find a way to put a single nominee in there?
2.) Does deliberately steering the President to nominate someone of a certain gender protect the democracy?
3.) Even if BOTH the first and second allegations were true, and he admitted to them, how would that disqualify him from being on the SCOTUS?
This is not a trial. It's a hearing to try and get a sense of who this guy is, his level of integrity and congruence with social and legal realities, his fitness to be an impartial and final arbiter of decisions that will affect all of us for 30 years or so.
He has refused to answer any questions about where he stands on any factors likely to come before him, whether from a legal or philosophical standpoint.
The White House has refused to release 94% of the information available on his work product.
So, what they do know is.
He lied to Congress numerous times in hearings in 2004 and 2006, when interviewed for his present position. There is substantial proof of that. So Congress knows he lies under oath.
He attempted, by any means available to him, to block a 17 year old's right to have a legal abortion, including trying to delay her access until she was forced to bear the child under Texas law. Even after he lost that battle, he wrote a strongly worded dissent He claims privately to Susan Collins he won't overturn RoeVWade. But actions speak louder than words. It's very evident in this and other cases they DO have access to, that he has a strong bias on that question that differs from where the country is (71% do not want RvW overturned, according to a very recent poll). Only a fool would disregard his actions towards that young woman.
So, in trying to understand his character and ethics, they are looking at a fair amount of evidence that he did or still does treat women as objects, had a drinking problem for at least several years, and has a very activist conservative Republican background.
You can't tell me he's suddenly fair and impartial when he was a paid legal political operative for the Republicans during decades for, among other issues, the Florida 2000 recount, the Elian Gonzalez thing, the Vince Foster suicide (for which he lost the only case he ever argued in front of the SCOTUS), the impeachment of WJC as a major team member of the Starr investigation, and many other things, lots of which are hidden from us at the moment . He was often the principal person advancing conspiracy theories and far-right agendas in these matters.
Read this review of his career from when he was nominated in July, before this circus started and distracted from bigger issues.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaughs-unorthodox-path-to-trumps-supreme-court-shortlist/2018/07/06/dbf3c9de-8077-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html
His friends and close partners in advancing his agenda include
Quote: David BrockBut there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
Source - very important read if you want to understand why this has gone to idiot level partisanship. This is who the guy really is by a guy who worked right alongside him:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391
So, in knowing who Kavanaugh is, with so much withheld and deflected, not just from us, but from Congress as well, here we are on a track of unprovable(by legal standards, anyway) anecdotal allegations.
Echh.
Whitewater was about a land deal, too.
Watergate was about a hotel burglary.
This is really about a guy who lies when it's politically convenient or personally advantageous. A Congress and Administration obsessed with putting in place a guy who's willing to pay lip service to being fair and impartial when his record predominantly demonstrates he's anything but, ando shares their agenda. And a Congressional minority with long memories of being lied to previously.
If this is the avenue they have to go down to prove it, they're going to go there.
UN members openly laugh at Trump.
Also, here's a chart, albeit from last year, showing foreign countries' confidence in Obama vs. Trump regarding world affairs.
EDIT: And a tweet from 2014 that didn't age well. Then again, most of his tweets about Obama never do....
"We need a President who isn't a laughing stock to the entire World."
Quote: darkoz
Everything you post keeps you out of the running
Quote: beachbumbabsHe has refused to answer any questions about where he stands on any factors likely to come before him, whether from a legal or philosophical standpoint.
As if 300 published opinions don't give any indication of the judge's performance. BTW, can any judge be named who declared in confirmation hearings how he or she would vote on any issue probably coming before the Supreme Court?
Too bad that not one instance is given from all those "numerous times."Quote:He lied to Congress numerous times in hearings in 2004 and 2006, when interviewed for his present position. There is substantial proof of that. So Congress knows he lies under oath.
Quote: TigerWuOof.
UN members openly laugh at Trump.
Also, here's a chart, albeit from last year, showing foreign countries' confidence in Obama vs. Trump regarding world affairs.
EDIT: And a tweet from 2014 that didn't age well. Then again, most of his tweets about Obama never do....
"We need a President who isn't a laughing stock to the entire World."
Hahaha. Donald hates getting laughed at.
Wonder how he’ll lash out over this....
Quote: ams288
Hahaha. Donald hates getting laughed at.
Wonder how he’ll lash out over this....
Remember, his ego is massive and his perception of reality is incredibly skewed. He will somehow see it as they were laughing with him, and not at him.
It is quite interesting and, no doubt significant, when someone whose assertion has been disproved twice in one thread can respond with nothing more than, "Why bother?"Quote: ams288If you know your post isn’t worthy of a response and expect crickets, why bother?
Seems slightly pointless to me!
Quote: SanchoPanzaIt is quite interesting and, no doubt significant, when someone whose assertion has been disproved twice in one thread can respond with nothing more than, "Why bother?"
We are just tired of tilting at windmills sanchopanza
Quote: TigerWuRemember, his ego is massive and his perception of reality is incredibly skewed. He will somehow see it as they were laughing with him, and not at him.
You hit the nail right on the head. He’s actually claiming that it was supposed to get laughter now.
Quote: @AcostaTrump on laughter at UN during speech: “Oh it was great. Well that was meant to get some laughter, but it was great.”
When they laughed at him, he literally said, “didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s okay.”
Now he says it was supposed to get a laugh.
DELUSIONAL.
"In less than two years, my administration has accomplished almost more than any other administration in the history of our country,"
Why?
Why is that statement "supposed" to get a laugh? What is funny about it?
There is literally ZERO other context where that statement would get a laugh other than Trump knowing it is complete and utter B.S.
None at all.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAs if 300 published opinions don't give any indication of the judge's performance. BTW, can any judge be named who declared in confirmation hearings how he or she would vote on any issue probably coming before the Supreme Court?
Too bad that not one instance is given from all those "numerous times."
You have very selective attention or you're too lazy to check for yourself. The numerous times were within the document dump the majority dumped on the committee and the many documents they deemed "committee confidential".
In his hearing in 2004 and 2006, he was asked numerous times by several senators about a particular series of decisions made by the Bush White House in those years. He claimed he was not in the meetings, did not have the conversations, was not in the decision loop.
He lied. There were many email exchanges, diary entries, drafts or statements from him and others, dated during the time the senators were asking about, among those documents. He was in the loop about everything they asked, was working with people he claimed he didn't know, took meetings and positions on it, the whole thing.
That group of incriminating documentation is supposedly part of why they were trying to rush the discovery and dump the documents the night before - to hide that evidence before he could be confronted with it in the hearings.
Lying to Congress is a Felony. He should not only be withdrawn from SCOTUS, he should be removed from his present position and charged with a federal crime. I doubt that will happen, but only because of the amount of political protection he has under the party currently in power. I also don't know if it's subject to a statute of limitations, but it was 12 and 14 years ago.
Unfortunately for him, several of the senators he lied to are still in the Senate, and at least one is still on the Judicial Committee. You might Google what Dick Durbin has to say about it, unless you're just trolling me. But that's why the Democrats have entirely rejected him. He lies.
Quote: beachbumbabsUnfortunately for him, several of the senators he lied to are still in the Senate, and at least one is still on the Judicial Committee. You might Google what Dick Durbin has to say about it, unless you're just trolling me. But that's why the Democrats have entirely rejected him. He lies.
I have an idea. Why don't the Democrat senators step forward with the evidence and proceed from there?
If it is as open and shut as you say it is, he should be out of office in days.
I'd rather see them do that than the circus they have created at this point. Delay? How long? Until we say so. When will that be? Tenth of never.
They have a process to do all this and have had sixty days to bring these accusations and evidence to light...instead, the Democrats are taking one more step towards making confirmation nearly impossible unless one party has the Presidency and 50 solid votes in the Senate.
Both parties may have helped get here, but the question is this...who will stop it?
