New SCOTUS Judge

[theprestige]

IIRC, Democrats wanted him to undergo an ethics review, and he resigned. You're right, though, that Republicans mostly kept quiet at the time. I'd forgotten that they were supporting Roy Moore while it was going on.

Okay, it seems the article is correct - the Democrats think that sexual assault should have negative consequences for the assailant, whereas the Republicans don't and will, in fact, do everything in their power to protect them. I retract my defence of the Repubican party.

Do you retract your stupid "fairness" argument?

You railroaded Franken over unproven allegations, and now you want me to railroad Kavanaugh over unproven allegations, because in your twisted logic, that's "fair".

Your condemnation of Republicans is a given. You don't need to trot it out here. All I'm asking for is a rational assessment of the argument you're actually making.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, and re the "oreo" thing, it seems to me that if absolutely everybody from every corner of the political spectrum is telling you that you've said something racist, then you have 3 options:

1) double down
2) ignore them
3) reflect that if everybody's saying it that maybe they have a point, no matter what your intentions were, and that maybe you ought to modify your behaviour in the future.

1 & 2 do not seem to me to be the most constructive or grown-up of approaches.

I'm ignoring it because it's off topic. Perhaps I should have said a BINO. I was going for the RINO/DINO version which fit the point. I didn't know everyone would have a cow over it or had a different meaning than I was aware of.

If people are objecting to saying Thomas was more white than black because all the implications of what that meant, I'm sorry but it's undeniable. I imagine he hates the BLM movement more than his white counterparts. Are we to no say so because that would imply all whites are racist? They're not, but you can't deny who Thomas is.

How about normal person in name only?

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm ignoring it because it's off topic. Perhaps I should have said a BINO. I was going for the RINO/DINO version which fit the point. I didn't know everyone would have a cow over it or had a different meaning than I was aware of.

BINO...Oh my god...

 

[Stacyhs]

If this were an altar boy who had accused a priest of molestation that happened 36 years ago and was hazy about specific times and dates and had told a therapist about it years ago (and had not gone to the police nor even told his parents) would you be just as skeptical? No, you wouldn't.

Kavanaugh is not on trial. He's applying for a job. There are credible accusations against him that were discussed with a therapist back in 2012. Why is it so hard for the GOP to distance themselves from these creeps? Trump, Moore, and now Kavanaugh. It's gotten so bad if the accused is a GOP man, there's almost a presumption of guilt.

None of what you said is true as far as I'm concerned. I simply go by the evidence.

Ford said she is going to testify again, so we're back to square one, when her lawyer said she was ready to testify coming out of the gate. There will need to be arrangements made, of course.

He/she was talking about some vague situation with an alter boy and a priest and said how I would react to it. This is what happens when people think I'm part of a group that all feel the same way about everything. I'm not. I said it would depend on the evidence. That's all.

You said "none" of what he said was true. That included the highlighted parts in the rest of his comment. So you meant only his opinion that you wouldn't react the same is not true?

 

[Babbylonian]

I'm ignoring it because it's off topic. Perhaps I should have said a BINO. I was going for the RINO/DINO version which fit the point. I didn't know everyone would have a cow over it or had a different meaning than I was aware of.

If people are objecting to saying Thomas was more white than black because all the implications of what that meant, I'm sorry but it's undeniable. I imagine he hates the BLM movement more than his white counterparts. Are we to no say so because that would imply all whites are racist? They're not, but you can't deny who Thomas is.

"I'm ignoring it" followed by doubling down. Great work!

 

[The Big Dog]

It seems she has not committed to testifying. Her lawyer said that ““many aspects of the proposal you provided ... are fundamentally inconsistent with the Committee’s promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations.”

Yeah, it was not an invitation to negotiate.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sure, I understand her not telling her parents, assuming this actually happened. I understand if she went to the police she would have to make a sworn statement, even today. I don't believe she doesn't know the location of the party, though, or how she got there, or how she got out of the room she was locked in, or how she got home. Those are not the kinds of things people forget. She "forgot" everything that would allow this to actually be investigated and for the people she accused of being there to have alibis. Pretty convenient, don't you think? These are the kinds of things people always "forget" if they weren't actually where they said they were.

It is possible to accuse anyone of anything if you don't provide a time, date, year, or location. You can make it all up an no one can ever prove any of it isn't true.

You don't believe it because you don't want to believe it because you don't want to believe what she says. Why should she remember where it was exactly or how she got there 36 years later? Those are meaningless details soon forgotten. The actual incident is not meaningless. The only reason I can tell you how I got to the club where I was attacked is because it happened in my car.
You assume these are thing "people don't forget". Really? Are you saying that people retain unimportant details about events that happened 36 years ago, especially after a trauma? Memories are not video tapes recorded in the brain.

So you think that she just coincidentally and fortuitously told her therapist 6 years ago about a party where she was assaulted by someone who went to an "elitist boys' school" and who was now "a highly respected and high-ranking member(s) of society in Washington" ? She then decides she can use this made up story 6 years later to go after Kavanaugh by sending a letter to Feinstein?

She named the other boy (Judge) who was there, too. That's a detail that could be investigated. He's claimed he has no memory of the incident but then again, he has admitted that he was an extremely heavy drinker at the time. I guess Ford was just lucky when she said the boys were drunk.

She also never said she didn't know how she got out of the "room she was locked in". She had locked herself in the bathroom so she obviously could unlock it herself when she thought she was safe to leave.

Looking at the evidence does not include ignoring the evidence that doesn't support your theory.

 

[Stacyhs]

Note: She was 15, he was 17.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.598f08f3dc3b

Thanks for pointing that out. I just love it rolleyes when a grown man claims Ford is lying because, as a 15 year old girl she did not go to the police or even her parents after she is attacked at a party where there was a lot of heavy underage drinking going on.

 

[Bob001]

Thanks for pointing that out. I just love it rolleyes when a grown man claims Ford is lying because, as a 15 year old girl she did not go to the police or even her parents after she is attacked at a party where there was a lot of heavy underage drinking going on.

In addition to everything else, I suspect there was a senior/sophomore dynamic going on.

 

[Meadmaker]

The idea that she should have gone to the police in 1982 is utterly laughable. A 15 year old girl shows up at the police station and says that she was groped when she was extremely drunk? There's no way they would even have taken the complaint seriously.


Only a complete idiot would put that forward as a reason to doubt the story. Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[Stacyhs]

I wouldn't doubt a bit that Ford, at the time, may have feared being blamed for what happened. I'm just a bit older than Ford, but close enough to know what it was like in high school at that time. If a girl made an accusation she could not definitively prove, she was called a liar. And some of the worst offenders were other girls, especially if the boy was popular and/or an athlete. Girls tended to get the blame for anything sexually related. If she was sexually active, she was a slut. A guy, on the other hand, was just a stud. If she got pregnant, she suffered the consequences including being ostracized. The boy seldom did. He could deny being the father in those days of pre-DNA testing.

 

[The Big Dog]

The details are trickling out.

The lawyer said she agreed, but it was a total bluff, she agreed on nothing.

The lawyers asked in their message to "set up a time for later this afternoon to continue our negotiations."

Yeah, totally playing games at this point.

Vote Monday, enough shenanigans.

 

[Stacyhs]

The idea that she should have gone to the police in 1982 is utterly laughable. A 15 year old girl shows up at the police station and says that she was groped when she was extremely drunk? There's no way they would even have taken the complaint seriously.


Only a complete idiot would put that forward as a reason to doubt the story. Thank you, Mr. President.

But Ford should have known to do that so the police record could support her allegation against Kavanaugh 36 years later!

 

[Meadmaker]

Right now it is: he said he said he said v. She said, with one witness unaccounted for.

Careful, though. There's a lot that so far hasn't been said.


Also, we don't know how many people were at the alleged party. We know the accuser has said there were four boys. She publicly named two. A third somehow (is it public knowledge how? I never read how he found out) found out he was named, and denies ever seeing anything like that. There's no word from anyone whether any other girls were present. I've seen rumors that at least one has been named privately.


Finally, I find it interesting what has not been in the three men's denials. None of them said, "I did not know Christina Blasey." None of them said, "I was never at a party with Christina Blasey." Of course, they are probably keeping their statements to a minimum, so that isn't necessarily significant, but it's still interesting. The "he said" versions have been so sparse that we can't infer much from them, except denial that an attempted rape took place. If there is ever testimony on it, we could find a lot more details to compare in the accounts. Right now, we're kind of stabbing in the dark.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm ignoring it because it's off topic. Perhaps I should have said a BINO. I was going for the RINO/DINO version which fit the point. I didn't know everyone would have a cow over it or had a different meaning than I was aware of.

If people are objecting to saying Thomas was more white than black because all the implications of what that meant, I'm sorry but it's undeniable. I imagine he hates the BLM movement more than his white counterparts. Are we to no say so because that would imply all whites are racist? They're not, but you can't deny who Thomas is.

How about normal person in name only?

Would you like a new shovel?

How about not judge a man by the color of his skin, but the content of his character?

 

[The Big Dog]

Careful, though. There's a lot that so far hasn't been said.


Also, we don't know how many people were at the alleged party. We know the accuser has said there were four boys. She publicly named two. A third somehow (is it public knowledge how? I never read how he found out) found out he was named, and denies ever seeing anything like that. There's no word from anyone whether any other girls were present. I've seen rumors that at least one has been named privately.


Finally, I find it interesting what has not been in the three men's denials. None of them said, "I did not know Christina Blasey." None of them said, "I was never at a party with Christina Blasey." Of course, they are probably keeping their statements to a minimum, so that isn't necessarily significant, but it's still interesting.

Her therapists notes said there were four boys there, but only three have been identified, and all three deny it.

It seems that there was another girl, but she has not been publicly identified.

 

[Bob001]

The FBI had jurisdiction in the Hill/Thomas case, since they were both federal employees working in a federal office for the alleged events. It does not have jurisdiction in this case. Do you not see the potential problem of allowing the President to order the FBI to investigate allegations it has no jurisdiction over?
...

The FBI conducts background checks of nominees for federal jobs, probably thousands every year. That's one of their authorized duties. They report their findings to the hiring authority. This is not a criminal investigation. What don't you get about this?

 

[Stacyhs]

Careful, though. There's a lot that so far hasn't been said.


Also, we don't know how many people were at the alleged party. We know the accuser has said there were four boys. She publicly named two. A third somehow (is it public knowledge how? I never read how he found out) found out he was named, and denies ever seeing anything like that. There's no word from anyone whether any other girls were present. I've seen rumors that at least one has been named privately.


Finally, I find it interesting what has not been in the three men's denials. None of them said, "I did not know Christina Blasey." None of them said, "I was never at a party with Christina Blasey." Of course, they are probably keeping their statements to a minimum, so that isn't necessarily significant, but it's still interesting. The "he said" versions have been so sparse that we can't infer much from them, except denial that an attempted rape took place. If there is ever testimony on it, we could find a lot more details to compare in the accounts. Right now, we're kind of stabbing in the dark.

If he wasn't in the room, he could not have seen it. It neither confirms nor disproves that it happened.

Good points about none of them denying actually knowing Ford at the time. I suspect that for Judge and Kavanaugh, one drunken weekend high school party ran into another from the descriptions of their drinking during that time.

 

[Aber]

A 15 year old girl shows up at the police station and says that she was groped when she was extremely drunk?

IIRC she had 1 beer (as had others) but Kavanaugh and Judge were "stumbling drunk".

 

[The Big Dog]

Not clear what the Committee is doing. It is after 5 in DC and no word on Ford’s latest stalling attempt.