New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The difference is that the letter describing Swetnick's alleged actions do not include unwanted or forced sexual acts on another person. The allegations made against Kav do.
The Swetnick letter does not include allegations of lying, much less under oath before a gov't body. The criticism of Kav does.

I was hoping someone would mention this fact. Because yes, those accusations are quite worse or more serious than any non criminal ones. Wouldn't you agree?

You don't have a problem with people giving character statements on Kavanaugh, but are upset someone did with Swetnick? Noted.
 
It tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not he committed sexual assault. I read somewhere that that was the subject of the hearing.

Whether or not he can either lie or tell the truth about an attempted rape, because he cannot know one way or the other being mindless drunk at the time?

Because you missed it. Kavanaugh also lied about the extent of his drinking, to make himself look better.
 
A perjury trap described any situation where a subject of an interrogation under oath is asked a question whose answer is not important to the matter being investigated, but which the interrogator believes the subject may lie about. The question is asked in the hope that the subject of the interrogation will lie, so that the subject may be charged with perjury.

(Note: there are slight variations on the above, where the defendant doesn't lie, but may be charged with lying, and a prosecutor/congressional committee may believe it easier to get a conviction on a perjury charge than on the original charge, regardless of actual guild or innocence.)

Kavanaugh is an experienced lawyer and judge. Do you think he doesn't know how to get around that kind of questioning? A person can avoid that by either not lying or using the ever oh so popular "I don't recall " or "I don't know".
 
By definition, we didn't get any information from the lie.

Right there is your flaw. We do get information from a lie if we have evidence to support it being a lie.

We have knowledge to distrust the testimony offered.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose person A is charged with murder on night X. The police ask him, where were you on night X, do you have an alibi?

The reality is: Person A was blackout drunk on night X.

Are you seriously suggesting that specific information--Suspect was blackout drunk on the night in question--is somehow irrelevant to the police investigation???


Gimme a break.

You're smarter than that.

I think.
 
The difference is that the letter describing Swetnick's alleged actions do not include unwanted or forced sexual acts on another person. The allegations made against Kav do.
The Swetnick letter does not include allegations of lying, much less under oath before a gov't body. The criticism of Kav does.

This is speculation, but there is one marginally legitimate purpose the letter serves other than slut-shaming, or at least it might serve.

Suppose she knows the names of some of her group sex partners, and she names them, claiming they raped her. They are investigated, and at least one of them says that he and one or more of the other named boys had sex with her, but it was consensual. At this point it's she said/they said, but juries are highly skeptical of claims of consensual sex involving alcohol, drugs, and multiple partners. With this letter, there is evidence that she had specifically sought out sex with multiple partners, supporting the claim of consensual contact.

That still doesn't excuse making the letter public, though.
 
Based on Ford's lawyers saying that they still haven't been responded to, and GOP aides are saying it will be done quite early, I am going to believe that the investigation is still much more restricted than the "free reign" as claimed by Trump. Flake said he didn't want it to just be cover, but we will see if that means anything.

Mitch McConnell wants a vote this week. He won't have him withdraw because he wants to force vulnerable Democrats to vote against him and hurt their midterm chances. Trump doesn't want to withdraw him because, like John Oliver said, he sees this as an opportunity for a further "**** you" to the Democrats. Not only will a Republican ideologue get on the SCOTUS, but it is a rebuke to the cultural movement of #MeToo and women calling out sexual abuse of which he sees himself as a fellow victim.

"It is a very scary time for young men in America, when you can be guilty of something you may not be guilty of," Trump told reporters on the South Lawn before leaving the White House.

Trump said Kavanaugh has been treated unfairly as multiple women have come forward to accuse the federal judge of sexual misconduct. The FBI is investigating the allegations, delaying a Senate confirmation vote.

"It's a very scary situation where you're guilty until proven innocent," the president said. "That is a very, very difficult standard."

Trump's comments are likely to fuel the firestorm surrounding Kavanaugh's nomination and renew questions about his attitude toward the "Me Too" movement.

Nineteen women have accused the president of sexual misconduct or said they’ve had an extramarital affair with him. Trump has denied all of the allegations.

Asked if he had a message for young women, Trump replied, “Women are doing great.”

Linky.
 
It tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not he committed sexual assault. I read somewhere that that was the subject of the hearing.

But the answer tells us about his credibility.

I also read from time to time, and I recall reading somewhere that credibility (or lack thereof) is a relevant quality in a witness...in any hearing, regardless of the subject.
 
“Cloture may be filed tomorrow … it feels to me like the FBI reports could come in as early as tomorrow, maybe Thursday … my guess is we’re going to vote no later than Saturday,” Corker said in an interview. He said he made that assessment after some "very heartfelt conversations" with his GOP colleagues.

Asked if Kavanaugh will win confirmation, Corker replied “I do.”

Linky.
 
I was hoping someone would mention this fact. Because yes, those accusations are quite worse or more serious than any non criminal ones. Wouldn't you agree?

The letter does nothing to suggest shes lying, it describes her character. Much like some of the statements I've seen the press toss out there about Kavanaugh regarding his drinking or sexual conduct

You seem to have missed the point. Swetnick's character regarding her own personal sexual life that does not include unwanted physical assaults is her own business and irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with what she says she witnessed. Kavanaugh's character is relevant when it comes to allegations that he behaved more than a tad bit inappropriately with unwilling women. I was merely pointing out the difference since you asked "How is it different?"

You don't have a problem with people giving character statements on Kavanaugh, but are upset someone did with Swetnick? Noted.

I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions. Who said I was upset about that letter? I don't give a rat's *** about it. I was pointing out the difference between the two since you seemed unaware of it.
 
Also interesting that you mentioned four of the five questions, omitting one. The point of the second pair of questions was that regardless of whether he blacked out, you would treat his answer as untrustworthy.
Who, me personally? I'm not the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. How do you know how I, personally, would treat it? I didn't leave out question 4 because it was a "gotcha," I left it out because without any question of blackouts I might well have believed him. (Although the belligerence at the question didn't help his case, IMO).

It provides no information related to the assault allegation.
This has been said so many times I doubt if you'll "get it," but a history of blackout drinking would demonstrate that he might not have remembered the incident. If there is no such history, his denial does carry more wait with me. I'm not out to get Kavanaugh, particularly, but ever since I read (didn't watch) the Fox interview, I've noticed that his answers tend to be evasive. I've theorized that Kavanaugh himself doesn't know the answer - as if he has no memory of it, but as if he felt he could not categorically deny it, either. When I'm up for it I'll look at the hearing transcript, but what I saw was evasive and hostile.

I am plenty willing to find fault with committee Democrats. If there's no possibility of blackouts involved, why would I not trust him? In his own highly partisan way he might be a very straight arrow who is shocked and hurt at the idea anyone could think him capable of attempted rape. However, some people experience major personality changes under the influence of alcohol. They may not consciously be aware of that. Unconsciously it may be a source of shame, masked by a facade of belligerence and bravado. That calls for all kinds of speculation so I'll cut this essay short.
 
You seem to have missed the point. Swetnick's character regarding her own personal sexual life that does not include unwanted physical assaults is her own business and irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with what she says she witnessed. Kavanaugh's character is relevant when it comes to allegations that he behaved more than a tad bit inappropriately with unwilling women. I was merely pointing out the difference since you asked "How is it different?"



I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions. Who said I was upset about that letter? I don't give a rat's *** about it. I was pointing out the difference between the two since you seemed unaware of it.


Both are unsubstantiated statements (Swetnicks, and the Ketterer letter) one accuses someone of criminal activity, and then later goes on in an interview and changes up stories on those statements. The other gives a character statement on someone that is non criminal.

Which is worse? Lying about someone drugging and gang raping people, or saying someone likes to have sex a lot or with a lot of people and not being proven false by your own later statements?

Have you compared Swetnicks interview and her statment? If not -- maybe you should.
 
Unconsciously it may be a source of shame, masked by a facade of belligerence and bravado. That calls for all kinds of speculation so I'll cut this essay short.
I'm actually dying to make those speculations.
 
Did everyone running interference for swetnick watch her interview?

Yeah. She. Lied. Like an avenatti client.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409582-pavlich-discredited-claims-against-kavanaugh

Infamous lawyer Michael Avenatti released a sworn statement for his client, Julie Swetnick, who suggested Kavanaugh engaged in gang rape at a series of high school parties in the 1980s. Feinstein put Swetnick’s story into the Congressional Record.

“During the years 1981-82, I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to ‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No,’ ” Swetnick said in a sworn statement. “I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms … these boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.”

A quick look into Swetnick’s background, which exposes a history of suspect claims and lawsuits, immediately raised a series of credibility red flags. Her ex-boyfriend, who came close to filing a restraining order against her, said she threatened to kill his unborn child.

During an interview with NBC News, Swetnick’s story fell apart. Not only did she botch the timeline about when she decided to come forward about her claims, she went from accusing Kavanaugh of “spiking the punch” at parties and insinuating he engaged in “gang rape,” to saying she saw him standing next to the punch and wasn’t sure if gang rape occurred.

“I saw him around the punch, I won’t say bowls, or the punch containers. I don’t know what he did, but I saw him by them,” Swetnick said.

When asked about whether Kavanaugh had engaged in gang rape as she suggested, she couldn’t say.
 
Kavanaugh's 1983 letter about a beach weekend says:

“warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. Advise them to go about 30 miles...”

I wonder who he was referring to?

He signed it "FFFFF, Bart".

(Also, his handwriting is laughable.)

He also says:

"I think we are unanimous that any girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open...." (I can't imagine why he chose not to finish that sentence.)

"The danger of eviction is great and that would suck because of the money and because this week has big potential. (Interpret as wish)."

He sounds charming.
 
Shouldn’t they establish that there was an incident in the first place? Knowing his drinking habits isn’t going to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But the interlocutors had to work with they had, given that the Majority forced upon them a tightly limited inquiry that involved *only* Kav and Ford. If the Majority had wisely and promptly instigated an extended FBI background check/investigation, as has been normal practice in past decades, perhaps a firmer grounding in the event(s) in question would have been at hand.

It really pisses me off that the Rs shout to the heavens about the 'unfair' questioning that *they themselves* forced to be necessary because of the opacity enforced by their partisan constraints.
 
You’re pulling something, but I don’t think it’s rank.

“Dress code” and “uniform” are not mutually exclusive terms.

When everyone is dressed the same, that’s a uniform, by definition.

Because you know, they’re all uniform.


While I totally agree that this indeed constitutes a school uniform, I believe it's moot for the sake of this particular area of discussion: I think Dr Ford could only reasonably be referring to sports uniform (and specifically football uniform). Male school sports jocks the world over (certainly in the UK and US) are well-known for their propensity to wear liveried clothes bearing the identity of their team to social gatherings. It immediately identifies them to everyone else as a top sportsman and reinforces their own egoes.

It would be interesting and useful if someone were to ask Dr Ford to clarify exactly what she meant by "uniform" in her testimony. As I say above, I think it's highly likely that she'd say she was referring to liveried school football apparel.
 

Back
Top Bottom