New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Paul2 said:
I’m a bit late to this party/topic, but I frequently used asterisks for emphasis and have done so on this very site. I’ll dig up links to posts on request.
Click to expand...

Same, I've used them since I don't know, IRC days? On several boards too. Funny that. I'm sure somehow people have run in completely different circles.
 
MikeG said:
Who are the FBI reporting to? Surely not to the president? Is it to Congress? Why wouldn't they just publish their conclusions?
Click to expand...

Apparently, the White House (so McGahn directly, likely) is who they're reporting to. Technically, what's going on is an addendum to a background check, apparently, so I've heard that the FBI's findings will go to the White House and they'll choose what to add onto what they had already sent to the Senate and resend it.

Far less confidence-inducing than what was actually being asked for, in short, especially if those allowed to be interviewed are being limited absurdly. I wouldn't call for a fishing investigation, regardless, but what McGahn started with on the table is rather pathetic.

Stacyhs said:
If that were to happen, he would not be confirmed. Even the GOP would not go that far.
Click to expand...

...If so, it would only be because of the highly motivating to their opponents public stink, given the behavior of most of them.

Meadmaker said:
The sanctimony is strong in this case, but in reality no one would ever under any circumstances be prosecuted for lying about the meaning of "boof" in their high school yearbook.
Click to expand...

Good thing that that's not really a serious argument in play in the first place!

Frankly, when it comes to perjury, specifically, I would be more concerned about his previous perjury in relation to the Democrats' documents that he mysteriously had access to, quite honestly. Also of note is that if it was "just" perjury about "boofing," I wouldn't care much either. It's not. His perjury about "boofing" is part of a longstanding pattern of behavior, which should be of concern to everyone. If one expands from that to everything else, it gets even worse. It sure looks like you're missing the forest as you focus on a sapling when you pointedly focus on things like that. Kavanaugh was a bad person to choose from the start (and McConnell apparently knew it), but the Senate Republicans were trying to ram him through anyways (likely fearful of the coming election and how problems with him could make things even worse for them). That's what really matters, quite honestly.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Ford: And it was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out.

So it was kind of a pre-gathering.
Click to expand...
In my experience these social events did tend to blur into each other. Sometimes we even managed them off campus at lunch hour. My house was the scene of many such "parties" as well as the full-fledged parties with, it seemed, my older brother's entire sophomore/junior class.

I'm not unduly skeptical of Ford as I believe she was trying hard to stick with facts. But it's very difficult to corroborate. I also believe that if it's true, her attacker(s) may have had no idea how frightened she was. He/they could have been that immature and self-centered.
 
acbytesla said:

'Sunlight is the best disinfectant'
--Justice William O Douglas
Click to expand...
Oh, there will be leaks.

The White House appears to be suppressing evidence re: missing documents. W. said they should err on the side of transparency. Didn't happen.
 
carlitos said:
I'm taking a chance here by asking you to document a claim.

- Please link that claim about the uniforms here so that I can read it.
- Please confirm that this claim is not about athletes wearing their team uniforms on weekends.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, taking a chance! I see you are taking a chance by asking me to prove a negative too.

I believe he might have been wearing a Georgetown Prep uniform,” she added, “which a lot of the boys used to wear — at least a uniform or parts of their uniform.”
Click to expand...

You think they had their football pants on or something?

One of hundreds of sources. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/swetnick-kavanaugh-aggressive-855650
 
No, I figured that they might wear a team shirt, sweats, warm-ups, etc., like lots of athletes did in my school, trying to be cool. Anyway, I won't be asking you anything else, don't worry.

ETA - the football pants thing is an attempt to be ridiculous, but I did have one girlfriend that asked me specifically to wear my baseball pants out after games.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
No, I figured that they might wear a team shirt, sweats, warm-ups, etc., like lots of athletes did in my school, trying to be cool. Anyway, I won't be asking you anything else, don't worry.
Click to expand...

cool, researching stuff on your own is cool.
 
carlitos said:
As I mentioned earlier, it's not possible for someone else to remember you being blackout drunk. That's not what the word means.
Click to expand...

Well kind of. If they remember tons of **** you don't, and better, others do too, they just might remember you being blackout drunk. I've been and I depended on others to reconstruct the evening. Those people who I talked to the next day? They remember me as being blackout drunk. Or at least at some point came to know me as having been black out drunk. YMMV.
 
Meadmaker said:
The fact that he (probably) lied about his drinking makes me question his judgement and character. The fact that he was asked about it makes me think that the Democratic senators are really awful people.
Click to expand...

Then you really, really need to take a step back and pay attention to the reasoning for why they were asking about that. And why the yearbook was of any relevance at all. You appear to be seriously claiming that, when a credible charge of sexual assault while heavily drunk is put forward, that even fairly basic questions about the accused's drinking and drinking habits around that time are being hostile, awful, and out of line. This is an absurd position from the start.
 
elemental said:
Well kind of. If they remember tons of **** you don't, and better, others do too, they just might remember you being blackout drunk. I've been and I depended on others to reconstruct the evening. Those people who I talked to the next day? They remember me as being blackout drunk. Or at least at some point came to know me as having been black out drunk. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Fair point. If Kavanaugh was half the partier that it seems like he was, he would have definitely had those after-the-night-out phone calls with friends, trying to reconstruct the evening's activities.
 
Minoosh said:
Oh, there will be leaks.

The White House appears to be suppressing evidence re: missing documents. W. said they should err on the side of transparency. Didn't happen.
Click to expand...

A few leaks that are always questionable as opposed to an unvarnished report. Also, being provided with a full report will provide citizens with information that will show just how comple the investigation actually was. I don't believe that a thorough investigation can be made in days so I am already questioning it.
 
theprestige said:
"Seriously! You must have got blackout drunk, and then that happened, and you just don't remember it!"

"Do you remember me ever being blackout drunk?"

"... No."

"This conversation is over."
Click to expand...
Since others likely don't know if one is blackout drunk or not unless they are asking the next day about what they had been doing, the idea that someone else didn't remember it means nothing.
 
Another picky language issue: "Rebut" and "refute" are being used somewhat interchangeably (ETA: in the media; not here that I've noticed).

ETA2: This is trickier. If an underage/inebriated 15-year-old is unqualified to give consent, is an inebriated 17-year-old unqualified to consent? If so does that affect his ability to form intent? I keep going back to Kavanaugh's contention, which is apparently self-evident to him, that he knows he would never try to rape anyone. IMO, people who have a Jekyll and Hyde change of personality with alcohol tend to be what is colloquially known as an alcoholic. IOW, it's a sign of the kind of out-of-control behavior that IMO militates against the possibility of ever developing a moderated drinking habit. But I doubt if that is clinically documented anywhere. I've heard numerous people say they blacked out the very first time they drank. The first time I really drank I had 8 shots of Jack Daniel's. A blackout would have been merciful. I recall hours of being sick as a dog. Moral of the story: I can't drink bourbon.

The above paragraph is full of weasel words for a reason, and is actually irrelevant to the matter at hand, since Kavanaugh, unlike Judge, has not embraced the "recovering alcoholic" narrative.
 
Last edited:
Saw this posted on facebook earlier, if true very interesting.

The Safeway store that Dr. Ford claims to have gone to in 1982 after the attempted rape, didn’t open until 1986
Click to expand...

safeway.jpg
 
we have reached the point where people do not understand the difference between a dress code and a school uniform in aid of a women who last night walked back all of her farcical claims.
 
River said:
if true very interesting.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't trust anyone too stupid to take a screencap, instead taking a photograph of their computer screen. This is a classic sign of the crank conspiracy theorist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom