New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
Republicans are running scared, thinking they are going to lose even more women voters. It is partially a result of MeToo that the "b*'!hes be lyin' " defense is no longer advisable as a first reaction.
Click to expand...

I don't think arguing that sexual assault isn't anything to worry about is going to work for them to attract women voters.
 
Also food for thought - Mike Judge can allegedly confirm that Kavanaugh wasn't at that party (although it's something of a mystery how Kavanaugh knows that, since no particular party has been specified), and also wasn't at that party (ditto), then why is he unwilling to say so under oath? If you could exculpate your friend from a charge of sexual assault without inculpating yourself in anything and in doing so help him to get a great job that he really wanted, wouldn't you? I would.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Also food for thought - Mike Judge can allegedly confirm that Kavanaugh wasn't at that party (although it's something of a mystery how Kavanaugh knows that, since no particular party has been specified), and also wasn't at that party (ditto), then why is he unwilling to say so under oath? If you could exculpate your friend from a charge of sexual assault without inculpating yourself in anything and in doing so help him to get a great job that he really wanted, wouldn't you? I would.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can infer all that much from unwillingness to testify. (At least, reluctance to testify. So far, no one has talked about subpoenas, just invitations. We don't know who among the witnesses would lawyer up and refuse to testify if subpoenaed.)

Whoever goes into that room to testify will be put on public display. They will have their private lives discussed by people like us, but also including everyone they know. Every new contact they make in the future will begin by the other party knowing, and having an opinion about, their life as a high school partier and someone who either was sexually assaulted, committed sexual assault, or lied about sexual assault. The questioning won't be limited to just this one alleged incident, and in the hyperpartisan atmosphere that will exist, whoever testifies will be in an environment where several United States senators will be very happy to charge them with perjury at the slightest provocation. Why would anyone want to be dragged into this?
 
Meadmaker said:
Whoever goes into that room to testify will be put on public display. They will have their private lives discussed by people like us, but also including everyone they know.

Why would anyone want to be dragged into this?
Click to expand...


Given that Mike Judge has apparently already published autobiographical books about his time at high school, he's not really getting much more exposure.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't think we can infer all that much from unwillingness to testify. (At least, reluctance to testify. So far, no one has talked about subpoenas, just invitations. We don't know who among the witnesses would lawyer up and refuse to testify if subpoenaed.)

Whoever goes into that room to testify will be put on public display. They will have their private lives discussed by people like us, but also including everyone they know. Every new contact they make in the future will begin by the other party knowing, and having an opinion about, their life as a high school partier and someone who either was sexually assaulted, committed sexual assault, or lied about sexual assault. The questioning won't be limited to just this one alleged incident, and in the hyperpartisan atmosphere that will exist, whoever testifies will be in an environment where several United States senators will be very happy to charge them with perjury at the slightest provocation. Why would anyone want to be dragged into this?
Click to expand...

I wasn't inferring anything specific, just saying that if it were my friend, I'd want to testify. And Judge has written a book about his excessive drinking, etc. at high school. Kavanaugh features throwing up in the back of a car.
 
Meadmaker said:
Wrong on two counts.

1. The FBI is in fact the agency that conducts background checks, including interviewing witnesses and investigating allegations unrelated to criminal matters. I have been interviewed by the FBI when friends sought security clearances. My friends have been interviewed about me when I sought a security clearance. Indeed, they have already done investigations into Kavanaugh's background.

I'm not necessarily saying they ought to be the ones to check this out, but I can't think of a reason why they couldn't.

2. Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual assault. (I heard it on Rush Limbaugh today, so it must be true.)
Click to expand...

Actually, correct on both counts:

Please see the analysis in this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3419a45aad5a
 
Few things maybe someone can clear up. Why is she being referenced at 15 during the incident, him 17, but the specific year unknown? We do know the year they were born, and would assume the summer of said year would be the time this occurred. Or were those ages guessed or made up whole cloth?

Beyond that not sure what evidence there is to gain by testimony in front of the senate. Per her account, she told no one of the incident at the time. Of the people she remembers there, both have denied. So what exactly will her testimony shed light on that her original statement does not convey? Hell, what investigation can be expanded with so little information.

That is not to say she is lieing or he is innocent, but it remains a tough road to tread finding anything about this specific instance that would sway beyond how believable the story and person are. Guess that's all there is to gain. How convinced of her story she is, and how convinced is he of the denial.
 
I hate to admit this, but Scott Adams' metaphor of "two movies on one screen" has proven terribly useful to me these days. With respect to the accusations against Kavanaugh, here are the two movies:

1) Unchecked Privilege Boosts Rapist Fratboy to High Court

2) Liberal Activist Sacrifices Integrity to Preserve Roe

I like to play the radical moderate (in general) but it's difficult for me to imagine a third way here. It is of course possible that they both badly misremember the events of that evening, but either Kavanaugh assaulted Blasey or he else did not.

ETA: I tend to find Blasey more credible than Kavanaugh, FWIW.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I hate to admit this, but Scott Adams' metaphor of "two movies on one screen" has proven terribly useful to me these days. With respect to the accusations against Kavanaugh, here are the two movies:

1) Unchecked Privilege Boosts Rapist Fratboy to High Court

2) Liberal Activist Sacrifices Integrity to Preserve Roe

I like to play the radical moderate (in general) but it's difficult for me to imagine a third way here. It is of course possible that they both badly misremember the events of that evening, but either Kavanaugh assaulted Blasey or he else did not.

ETA: I tend to find Blasey more credible than Kavanaugh, FWIW.
Click to expand...

Third way:
3) Person nominated to supreme court. Accusation levied against them, details as of yet unverified.
 
rdwight said:
Few things maybe someone can clear up. Why is she being referenced at 15 during the incident, him 17, but the specific year unknown? We do know the year they were born, and would assume the summer of said year would be the time this occurred. Or were those ages guessed or made up whole cloth?

Beyond that not sure what evidence there is to gain by testimony in front of the senate. Per her account, she told no one of the incident at the time. Of the people she remembers there, both have denied. So what exactly will her testimony shed light on that her original statement does not convey? Hell, what investigation can be expanded with so little information.
....
Click to expand...

She has said it was probably 1982. She's not clear about the date or the place.
After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.653d47aef35d

Testimony by both parties and any other witnesses would be under oath. That means that a lie by either party -- or any other witnesses they bring in -- would be a criminal offense. They want to assess everybody's credibility. If she says "this happened to me," and he says "Golly, I was drinking a lot, I just don't remember," that alone would be devastating.
 
rdwight said:
Per her account, she told no one of the incident at the time.
Click to expand...

No, per her account, she didn't provide details until 2012. According to a report I linked to upthread, the White House is worried by rumours that two school friends of Ford's can corroborate that she told them about the incident at the time.

Hell, what investigation can be expanded with so little information.
Click to expand...

This article explores this question by talking to sex crimes investigators, prosecutors, and psychologists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom