B Kavanough and MeToo

[CharonY]

Well, unless I am starting to imagining things it seems that after Flake's request a (max) one-week FBI inquiry will be started. It probably won't unearth a lot, but at least a few things might get checked off. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by CharonY

[iNow]

Update: Jeff Flake has said he’d vote no if there isn’t further investigation. Looks like there will now be a brief one conducted. 

EDIT: Basically what Charon already said

Edited September 28, 2018 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

36 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, I stand corrected then. Probably just early onset of senility on my part.

There was at least one CNN article referring to 11-10, though I already knew it was 11-8 when I read it.

So maybe you're still good...for now 

[koti]

On 28.09.2018 at 2:27 AM, iNow said:

Koti- We all know that women lie, too. We all know that otherwise good men often get screwed. 

That doesn’t seem to be the case here, tho. Suggesting it is suggests in parallel that you’re not as familiar with the details of the situation. 

I trust you know many, but your comments suggest you don’t know all. 

I certainly am not going to argue on this one and you’re right that I’m not familiar with the details here. Thanks for going easy on my comment which was spiced with ethanol.

[Ten oz]

In response to a question from Sen. Whitehouse about drinking Kavanaugh responded “I like beer, like beer. I don’t know if you do…. Do you like beer, Senator, or not? What do you like to drink? Senator, what do you like to drink?”

This was an ugly exchanged where I felt Kavanaugh showed a lack of basic reasoning and an inability to be impartial. Kavanaugh is up for a Lifetime appointment. The Senator asking the question is not. The Senator holds an elected position where her constituents can vote her out of office. A lifetime appointment is permanent. The Senator is accountable to those she represents and a SCOTUS judge is accountable to no one. Yet in throwing questions back at the Senator about whether or not she drinks Kavanaugh attempted to pretend the standards between the two are equal. As if nothing different or greater should be expected of him. Plus it was Kavanaugh being questioned and not vice versa. The Senator doesn't answer to him. She answers to her constituents and per the Constitution she is empowered to question SCOTUS nominees. Kavanaugh boasted about being top of his class, a Yale grad, and spoke about how hard he worked yet in action was failing to respect the process which like it or not is a lawful process. The Appointment Clause in the U.S. Constitution empowers the Senate Committee to do what they are doing and you'd think a graduate of Yale Law would understand have some tiny amount of respect for that. Rather it appeared Kavanaugh was temperamental and disrespectful of the process.

How that relates to sexual misconduct for me (my feeling based on his public testimony) is it raises questions about his temperament. If he can't stay calm and behavior in a cooperative manner with the world watching during a formal proceeding authorized by the Constitution imagine how he is behind a closed doors with some beers in him. 

For the record I like Beer. I brew craft beer at my home. I also am not fit for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS for at least a thousand different reasons. 

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

I certainly am not going to argue on this one and you’re right that I’m not familiar with the details here. Thanks for going easy on my comment which was spiced with ethanol.

<fist bump>

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In response to a question from Sen. Whitehouse about drinking Kavanaugh responded “I like beer, like beer. I don’t know if you do…. Do you like beer, Senator, or not? What do you like to drink? Senator, what do you like to drink?”

This was an ugly exchanged where I felt Kavanaugh showed a lack of basic reasoning and an inability to be impartial. Kavanaugh is up for a Lifetime appointment. The Senator asking the question is not. The Senator holds an elected position where her constituents can vote her out of office. A lifetime appointment is permanent. The Senator is accountable to those she represents and a SCOTUS judge is accountable to no one. Yet in throwing questions back at the Senator about whether or not she drinks Kavanaugh attempted to pretend the standards between the two are equal. As if nothing different or greater should be expected of him. Plus it was Kavanaugh being questioned and not vice versa. The Senator doesn't answer to him. She answers to her constituents and per the Constitution she is empowered to question SCOTUS nominees. Kavanaugh boasted about being top of his class, a Yale grad, and spoke about how hard he worked yet in action was failing to respect the process which like it or not is a lawful process. The Appointment Clause in the U.S. Constitution empowers the Senate Committee to do what they are doing and you'd think a graduate of Yale Law would understand have some tiny amount of respect for that. Rather it appeared Kavanaugh was temperamental and disrespectful of the process.

How that relates to sexual misconduct for me (my feeling based on his public testimony) is it raises questions about his temperament. If he can't stay calm and behavior in a cooperative manner with the world watching during a formal proceeding authorized by the Constitution imagine how he is behind a closed doors with some beers in him. 

For the record I like Beer. I brew craft beer at my home. I also am not fit for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS for at least a thousand different reasons. 

He had a few moments such as this, some of which he backtracked from somewhat and in one case apologized for.

But for someone who being grilled after being accused of sexual assault by a seemingly credible but essentially uncross examined witness, that offered little that could be cross examined in any case, he held up quite well. I don't think many thought he could do as well as he did when he first took the stand after the testimony Ford gave.. I don't think he could have done that staying totally within the bounds of how most would expect a SCOTUS judge to act, and he was obviously defending his name as well as supplying answers to this "job interview".

 

[CharonY]

Well he waffled on very easy questions. Heck he could have simply said that he partied too much as a youth, regrets it and is not that person any more. Attacking you interviewer is not holding up in my book. 

Meanwhile folks really did try to implicate Ford in lying and she calmly answered all questions. For someone familiar with courts he really seem to crack under pressure. And I am not sure that I would call it grilling. Well, unless you call repeating questions grilling when the interviewee dodges one.

Edited September 29, 2018 by CharonY

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well he waffled on very easy questions. Heck he could have simply said that he partied too much as a youth, regrets it and is not that person any more. Attacking you interviewer is not holding up in my book. 

Meanwhile folks really did try to implicate Ford in lying and she calmly answered all questions. For someone familiar with courts he really seem to crack under pressure. And I am not sure that I would call it grilling.

When a Senator brings up an accuser, as if they were credible, that has accused him of participating and observing multiple gang rapes I would count that as grilling in the context I meant that.

But you are correct there were no flames or high temperatures involved.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When a Senator brings up an accuser, as if they were credible, that has accused him of participating and observing multiple gang rapes I would count that as grilling in the context I meant that.

But you are correct there were no flames or high temperatures involved.

During investigations or legal proceedings of any kind do you think it is normal to ask questions regarding the accusers with doubt? I am not familiar with that. For what I have seen both the accused and the accusers are ask stern straight forward questions. Asking someone if they drink, have ever blacked out from drinking, and so on are simply questions. 

[CharonY]

Also he was just asked whether he denies the accusations. If that is grilling I do not want to see when real pressure is applied.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

During investigations or legal proceedings of any kind do you think it is normal to ask questions regarding the accusers with doubt? I am not familiar with that. For what I have seen both the accused and the accusers are ask stern straight forward questions. Asking someone if they drink, have ever blacked out from drinking, and so on are simply questions. 

I thought those were fair and reasonable questions to as, and pertinent to the purpose they were there..

Edited September 29, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I thought those were fair and reasonable questions to as, and pertinent to the purpose they were there..

In response to those which, which were reasonable, Kavanaugh got after the Senator asking what she drinks and so on. It wasn't professional. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Also he was just asked whether he denies the accusations. If that is grilling I do not want to see when real pressure is applied.

With the (I believe) intended implication that at least some of it must be true, I would count that as grilling. Not that I would necessarily be against all "grilling" in the context I intended. Nor was I against the handling of Dr. Ford with kip gloves (at least at the outset, where she seemed particularly vulnerable to have a bad emotional experience, one that could do her harm), but I thought the questioning did a poor job of finding facts on how she knew Kavanaugh, especially up until that time. The questioning seemed more focussed on how she might have been being used by the Democrats (which was pretty apparently the case, willingly or otherwise)

 

28 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In response to those which, which were reasonable, Kavanaugh got after the Senator asking what she drinks and so on. It wasn't professional. 

I agree. Wasn't one of his finer moments, though to some degree it may have been calculated. He was trying to break the connection between his drinking and having to try to prove a negative of the particular alleged event.

Edited September 29, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

I agree. Wasn't one of his finer moments, though to some degree it may have been calculated. He was trying to break the connection between his drinking and having to try to prove a negative of the particular alleged event.

Sure but the Senator can be held accountable for any behavior her constituents deem inappropriate while a SCOTUS Justice cannot once seated. His calculation, in my opinion, was a bit of an assualt on our Democrat processes. SCOTUS Justices are supposed to be impartial and do what's right by the Constitution and per the Constitution Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS nominee is obligated to answer Senators questions. From what I saw Kavanaugh was not respectful. 

As an extra bit of sand in the eye Kavanaugh was appointed by a President who lost the popular vote by 3 million and has a double digit negative approval rating. Where is Kavanaugh's humility here. Obviously a significant portion of the country is uneasy with him being on the bench and it is those tens of millions Senators (elected representatives) asking questions speak for. It is those tens of millions who will be impacted by Kavanaugh's judgements if he is appointed. It really shouldn't matter if those tens of millions are Democrats or Republicans. Yet in Kavanaugh's emotional knee jerk defense of himself he demagogued Democrats by name. Democrats represent a plurality of voters. It is terrible behavior for a potential SCOTUS Justice. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Ten oz

[Airbrush]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 1:50 PM, MigL said:

Getting back to the OP...

"Statistically false accusations of sexual assault from reputable victims are rare."

What about disreputable victims, Airbrush ?
( since you made a valid distinction )

Dr. Ford has a solid professional reputation in the field of psychology and demonstrated extraordinary veracity during her questioning.  Even Trump was impressed.  But then the GOP goes down the rabbit hole and shifts to believing Kavanaugh which implies Dr. Ford is confused about who exactly assaulted her, which seems absurd on the face of it.

"Disreputable victims" may or may not be telling the truth.  We don't know much about Kavanaugh's other accusers, YET.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Dr. Ford has a solid professional reputation in the field of psychology and demonstrated extraordinary veracity during her questioning.  Even Trump was impressed.  But then the GOP goes down the rabbit hole and shifts to believing Kavanaugh which implies Dr. Ford is confused about who exactly assaulted her, which seems absurd on the face of it.

"Disreputable victims" may or may not be telling the truth.  We don't know much about Kavanaugh's other accusers, YET.

Is this necessarily the case? Can you not suspend 100 % belief in either but allow Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt? You can answer to "should you do this?" but recognize that it is not the same question. 

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Sure but the Senator can be held accountable for any behavior her constituents deem inappropriate while a SCOTUS Justice cannot once seated. His calculation, in my opinion, was a bit of an assualt on our Democrat processes. SCOTUS Justices are supposed to be impartial and do what's right by the Constitution and per the Constitution Kavanaugh as a SCOTUS nominee is obligated to answer Senators questions. From what I saw Kavanaugh was not respectful. 

As an extra bit of sand in the eye Kavanaugh was appointed by a President who lost the popular vote by 3 million and has a double digit negative approval rating. Where is Kavanaugh's humility here. Obviously a significant portion of the country is uneasy with him being on the bench and it is those tens of millions Senators (elected representatives) asking questions speak for. It is those tens of millions who will be impacted by Kavanaugh's judgements if he is appointed. It really shouldn't matter if those tens of millions are Democrats or Republicans. Yet in Kavanaugh's emotional knee jerk defense of himself he demagogued Democrats by name. Democrats represent a plurality of voters. It is terrible behavior for a potential SCOTUS Justice. 

If you eliminate everyone unwilling to be nominated by a narcissistic buffoon you will have no nominees...

[Airbrush]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is this necessarily the case? Can you not suspend 100 % belief in either but allow Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt? You can answer to "should you do this?" 

The benefit of the doubt?  Just compare the performance of Dr. Ford compared to Kavanaugh.  Dr. Ford ran circles around the pompous, privileged, spoiled boy, who actually looked drunk , belligerent, and hyper-partisan during his hearing.   He did not look judicial, ranting and raving, evading questions, afraid to address the question of further FBI investigation, like a guilty person.  Even asking his interrogator if she had a drinking problem when she asked HIM the question.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

If you eliminate everyone unwilling to be nominated by a narcissistic buffoon you will have no nominees...

I didn't say eliminate. I asked where his humility was.

[J.C.MacSwell]

33 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

The benefit of the doubt?  Just compare the performance of Dr. Ford compared to Kavanaugh.  Dr. Ford ran circles around the pompous, privileged, spoiled boy, who actually looked drunk , belligerent, and hyper-partisan during his hearing.   He did not look judicial, ranting and raving, evading questions, afraid to address the question of further FBI investigation, like a guilty person.  Even asking his interrogator if she had a drinking problem when she asked HIM the question.

I think she did at least as well in the softball game as he did in the hardball one. They certainly were not on the same field. She ran circles around no one, much to her credit, but he wasn't even allowed in the room at her request.

He certainly evaded some of the questions, many of which were loaded with implications. You can blame him for that...or not...depending on your bias.

Edited September 29, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

Seems Airbrush has a new way of determining guilt or innocence.
He doesn't need to give anyone the 'benefit of the doubt', or presumed innocence, if they are
"pompous, privileged, spoiled boy, who actually looked drunk , belligerent, and hyper-partisan".
Again, evidence ? Who needs evidence ?

American jails would be a lot more full than they currently are.
( I wonder how he would react if he was being accused of sexual misconduct ??? )

Seems everyone is throwing around the distinction that this is a 'job interview' for B Kavanough,
Who gets asked these kinds of questions for a 'job interview' ?
Did any of the previous Supreme Court appointments get asked if they like beer ?

And what, then, was the C Blasey Ford interview ?

These interviews were little more than standard protocol; the vote would have gone down exactly the same even if there was no accusation made.
Such is the partisan state of American politics.


 

[swansont]

On September 28, 2018 at 4:36 PM, CharonY said:

Really? I thought I read that all cast their vote with all Reps in favour and all Dems against.

The vote to subpoena Judge went 11-10

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

The vote to subpoena Judge went 11-10

Didn't two Democrats not vote in protest?

Edit: Never mind. I see what you were referring to.

Edited September 29, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems Airbrush has a new way of determining guilt or innocence.
He doesn't need to give anyone the 'benefit of the doubt', or presumed innocence, if they are
"pompous, privileged, spoiled boy, who actually looked drunk , belligerent, and hyper-partisan".
Again, evidence ? Who needs evidence ?

American jails would be a lot more full than they currently are.
( I wonder how he would react if he was being accused of sexual misconduct ??? )

Did you miss the previous mentions that this is not a trial?

But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grouds to do exactly that. Also, eyewitness testimony is evidence. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems everyone is throwing around the distinction that this is a 'job interview' for B Kavanough,
Who gets asked these kinds of questions for a 'job interview' ?
Did any of the previous Supreme Court appointments get asked if they like beer ?

Was there a reason to ask?

 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Also, eyewitness testimony is evidence. 

As long as that person was not involved. A person saying they were attacked is testimony, not evidence. Evidence needs to have some sort of objectivity and separation from the persons involved.