New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Cabbage said:
To The Big Dog:

How many individual, uncorroborated yet credible witnesses against a nominee are necessary before you recognize a pattern and consider it evidence?

Serious question. I'm looking for a number here.
Click to expand...

More than 19. I believe that was the number of women who came forward with claims of Trump having been sexually inappropriate with them and we know they were just liars. Right?
 
Meadmaker said:
Yeah. They do. Let's leave aside the false dichotomy between her story being true versus her knowingly telling lies. Even people who are knowingly telling lies will brashly proclaim their innocence, inviting investigations, claiming they have nothing to hide.



People who are lying are sure that there's no way anyone can catch them in their lies.
Click to expand...


That last statement could apply equally well to Kav. Indeed, his having the power of the President (remember Kav's being holed up for two or three days at the WH for questioning preparation?) and the GOP *majority* behind him in their steadfast backing, and knowing that an FBI background check extension was to be nixed at all costs, he good reason to believe he could lie with no consequence.

But in spite of that, he was nonetheless too gutless to go all in and clamor for an unbiased investigation. Because he knew that would have forced the Goopers' hand, and that would bring everything crashing down.

On the other side, what could Ford count on to shield her from lying? A Dem *minority* that looked to be unable to stop the ultimate ramrodding through of Kav. If the *full* FBI investigation she and the minority were insisting upon from the start did actually come to pass, she could be in a bad place for having made so certain a false allegation.

In the end, who between Kav and Ford had the most to lose by lying? For Kav it's just that he'd stay at his current post. For Ford it could be a criminal charge.

And who has the most to gain by lying? Kav gets his fervent ambition realized. Ford goes back to her daily life, hopefully with the harrassment and death threats subsiding.
 
"It's really your fault. If you hadn't asked me any question I wouldn't have been able to lie."

Not 100% sure there's really a way to describe how insanely dishonest that is.
 
Lurch said:
That last statement could apply equally well to Kav. Indeed, his having the power of the President (remember Kav's being holed up for two or three days at the WH for questioning preparation?) and the GOP *majority* behind him in their steadfast backing, and knowing that an FBI background check extension was to be nixed at all costs, he good reason to believe he could lie with no consequence.

But in spite of that, he was nonetheless too gutless to go all in and clamor for an unbiased investigation. Because he knew that would have forced the Goopers' hand, and that would bring everything crashing down.

On the other side, what could Ford count on to shield her from lying? A Dem *minority* that looked to be unable to stop the ultimate ramrodding through of Kav. If the *full* FBI investigation she and the minority were insisting upon from the start did actually come to pass, she could be in a bad place for having made so certain a false allegation.

In the end, who between Kav and Ford had the most to lose by lying? For Kav it's just that he'd stay at his current post. For Ford it could be a criminal charge.

And who has the most to gain by lying? Kav gets his fervent ambition realized. Ford goes back to her daily life, hopefully with the harrassment and death threats subsiding.
Click to expand...

because he is smart enough to know that this was just the final play in the leftists attempt to delay the confirmation
 
Meadmaker said:
Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.
Click to expand...



This seems to be a common misunderstanding of what was actually going on. On top of that, Republican activists are clearly trying to push this line, even if they do understand the reality of the situation.

And the reality is this: the committee was not simply digging into the minutiae of Kavanaugh's student years for their own sake. Rather, the committee was doing so specifically because it has a mandatory requirement to try to ascertain the veracity of certain claims made against Kavanaugh, which date from around that time. Those claims, if verifiable, would constitute not only a potential criminal offence, but would also necessarily disqualify Kavanaugh from taking up a position on the Supreme Court.

With that in mind, in order to try to assess the veracity of the claims against Kavanaugh - and specifically Dr Ford's claim - the committee (correctly and appropriately) was trying to assess Kavanaugh's general character and actions from around that time. Only an idiot or a politically-motivated operative would disagree that it's irrelevant to the committee's investigation for them to question Kavanaugh on things like his (outrageous and self-character-assassinating) high school yearbook entry, his drinking habits from around that time of his life, and his specific activities from around the potential time period of the alleged assault.

So yes, if taken as a means to an end on their own, it would indeed have been inappropriate for the committee to have been delving into these sorts of issues. But in the context of investigating very serious - and disqualifying - accusations, they were/are entirely appropriate and fair.
 
LondonJohn said:
So yes, if taken as a means to an end on their own, it would indeed have been inappropriate for the committee to have been delving into these sorts of issues. But in the context of investigating very serious - and disqualifying - accusations, they were/are entirely appropriate and fair.
Click to expand...

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the right wants accusations of sexual misconduct to be largely ignored, particularly when one of their own is in the wrong.
 
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the left wants accusations of sexual misconduct to be weaponized, although not when one of their own is actually faced with credible accusations, not the nonsense that BK has been exposed to.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.
Click to expand...
Couple things here. The second paragraph does not negate the first. If you want to go partisan a partisan, don't leave out Kav revealing his CT about the Clintons, George Soros, and whoever else he named in his anti-Democratic rant, that alone should be disqualifying. Judges are supposed to at least make an effort to appear nonpartisan.

And second, no one would have gone looking for the yearbook if Kav didn't immediately deny what Ford accused him of. It's not OK to rape or attempt to rape girls in high school just because you are a teenager. Rape is a pretty serious crime, not one that doesn't matter years later.

You sound like Trump being annoyed Mueller might uncover money laundering and tax fraud, claiming if those crimes were found they shouldn't count.


Meadmaker said:
If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.
Click to expand...
You can't assassinate a person's character who has nothing to be assassinated with.

It sounds like Trump accusing Mueller of setting up a perjury trap. :rolleyes:

But back to Ford, if you go back and listen to or read the opening of her statement, she initiated the whole thing. No Democrat went looking for people from Kav's past. No one went looking for his drinking behavior. Until the accusation was brought to their attention, no Democrat went looking for Kav's year book.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
This seems to be a common misunderstanding of what was actually going on. On top of that, Republican activists are clearly trying to push this line, even if they do understand the reality of the situation.

And the reality is this: the committee was not simply digging into the minutiae of Kavanaugh's student years for their own sake. Rather, the committee was doing so specifically because it has a mandatory requirement to try to ascertain the veracity of certain claims made against Kavanaugh, which date from around that time. Those claims, if verifiable, would constitute not only a potential criminal offence, but would also necessarily disqualify Kavanaugh from taking up a position on the Supreme Court.

With that in mind, in order to try to assess the veracity of the claims against Kavanaugh - and specifically Dr Ford's claim - the committee (correctly and appropriately) was trying to assess Kavanaugh's general character and actions from around that time. Only an idiot or a politically-motivated operative would disagree that it's irrelevant to the committee's investigation for them to question Kavanaugh on things like his (outrageous and self-character-assassinating) high school yearbook entry, his drinking habits from around that time of his life, and his specific activities from around the potential time period of the alleged assault.

So yes, if taken as a means to an end on their own, it would indeed have been inappropriate for the committee to have been delving into these sorts of issues. But in the context of investigating very serious - and disqualifying - accusations, they were/are entirely appropriate and fair.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, and an excellent summary of the situation!

Republican partisans will, of course, refute this because "evil Dems" + reasons
 
The Big Dog said:
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the left wants accusations of sexual misconduct to be weaponized, although not when one of their own is actually faced with credible accusations, not the nonsense that BK has been exposed to.
Click to expand...

Too much of a coward to answer the question I asked, huh?

Thought so.

LOL
 
I Am The Scum said:
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the right wants accusations of sexual misconduct to be largely ignored, particularly when one of their own is in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Let's not be churlish. Let's listen to their reasons.
 
phiwum said:
I think that it's incredibly unlikely that he was completely honest. You and I bloody well know that his explanation for "Renate Alumnius" is just laughable.
Click to expand...

How embarrassing that must have been for Kav when Renate heard about it.

He said they kissed. She said they didn't even do that much.

Because I know one boy in particular that I dated, later told his friends we had sex when we didn't, I can speculate Kav was bragging about sex he never had with Renate. :sdl:
 
The Big Dog said:
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the left wants accusations of sexual misconduct to be weaponized, although not when one of their own is actually faced with credible accusations, not the nonsense that BK has been exposed to.
Click to expand...

Al Franken?
 
River said:
Humor is quite subjective isn't it?
Click to expand...

But it's only funny if you think that the Democrats are trying to 'get' Kavanaugh with a sexual assault allegation, as if sexual assault isn't something that would normally get anyone in trouble. That's why it's not funny: sexual assault is a pretty serious crime.
 
Meadmaker said:
I must admit I'm in a quandary?
Click to expand...

I'm not!

Regardless of whether any of the sexual assault allegations are true,
Regardless of whether he lied about the meanings of his yearbook nomenclature,
Regardless of whether he lied about his heavy drinking,

...his behaviour while defending himself in the hearing shows that his temperament is utterly unsuitable to sit as a judge, let alone on SCOTUS. Invoking Clinton conspiracy theories and blaming the Democrats shows that he will be unable to adjudicate in an even handed, non-partisan way... he will be a rubber stamp for GOP, and a stone wall for the Dems. I do not trust him not to try to overturn Roe v Wade at the first opportunity, or to not try to place POTUS above the Law, or to not be Dolt 45's "yes man" on SCOTUS.
 
This seems like something the FBI should check on in it's background check.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

Ludington says he was deeply troubled by Kavanaugh appearing to blatantly mischaracterize his drinking in Senate testimony.

“I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” Ludington wrote. “However ... if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.”
Click to expand...

Too bad they're not allowed to look into his drinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom