B Kavanough and MeToo

[Arete]

 

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

3. I can't agree that the temperament shown Thursday is disqualifying under the circumstances. Look no further than who you Americans (I am assuming by your location) have elected President of the U.S.

He quite possibly perjured himself, refused to answer questions, alluded to conspiracy theories and targeted political opponents - It wasn't simply that he yelled and cried (which he also did) but that the content of his responses should disqualify him from being a SCOTUS judge. 

If he committed sexual assault, he is potentially guilty of a felony offense, which is serious but not necessarily an automatic disqualification for being a judge, but lying under oath during the hearing would be. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Arete

[CharonY]

So apparently the FBI investigation was highly curtailed can after all. According to various reports they were not allowed to talk to either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. Also reportedly only six persons were interviewed.

I would also reiterate that in a job interview the job is to assuage worries employers may have. As such even when wrongfully accused of something (say by bad reference, errors in background check etc.) One would expect, especially from a seasoned judge, that one try to rectify the view. Getting belligerent is a lousy defense and realistically would automatically disqualify you from any job.

Edited October 4, 2018 by CharonY

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So apparently the FBI investigation was highly curtailed can after all. According to various reports they were not allowed to talk to either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. Also reportedly only six persons were interviewed.

 

Haven't they heard enough of those two?

[MigL]

So now what ?
This isn't simply about the Supreme Court nomination anymore.
Half of the country believes he's a drunken sexual predator while the other half thinks she's a lying vindictive b*tch ?
And nothing gets settled ? Nobody wants answers ? No-one cares ?

At least one of the two is a victim of a crime.
What about justice ?

Edited October 4, 2018 by MigL

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Haven't they heard enough of those two?

I suspect the FBI would approach their questioning of those two somewhat differently than the Democrat and Republican Senators did.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

At least one of the two is a victim of a crime.
What about justice ?

This whole thing is a pathetic sham. No one ever takes the high road because the other side will take advantage of the gesture. I can't hardly stand to read about the state of politics in the US.

The search for justice is only done as a means to further their goals, not for any desire to do the right thing.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I suspect the FBI would approach their questioning of those two somewhat differently than the Democrat and Republican Senators did.

This whole thing is a pathetic sham. No one ever takes the high road because the other side will take advantage of the gesture. I can't hardly stand to read about the state of politics in the US.

The search for justice is only done as a means to further their goals, not for any desire to do the right thing.

Yes, US politics is very ugly at this time, and internationally too. 

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Nobody wants answers ? No-one cares ?

That’s not fair. Many of us do.

Pkease, my friend; Don’t let the various bots and malcontent manifesters of mischief lead you to lose hope in our shared humanity, or to without challenge assume otherwise. 

https://www.wired.com/story/information-terrorists-trying-to-reshape-america

Edited October 4, 2018 by iNow

[rangerx]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Half of the country believes he's a drunken sexual predator while the other half thinks she's a lying vindictive b*tch ?

Wrong. Half the country thinks he's an intemperate liar while the other half does too but doesn't care and pretty much entire country believe she's telling the truth.

[MigL]

Really, Rangerx ?
Half the country voted for D Trump.
They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

Really, Rangerx ?
Half the country voted for D Trump.
They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

Yet here you are telling me that "half the country thinks she's a lying bitch". This is a science forum, so in that light.... citation please. TRUTH is you can't.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Yet here you are telling me that "half the country thinks she's a lying bitch". This is a science forum, so in that light.... citation please. TRUTH is you can't.

 

Quote

Four in 10 believe allegations against Kavanaugh, three in 10 do not: Reuters/Ipsos poll

.... The poll found that 42 percent of adults said they believed the accusations, including about the same number of men and women. Thirty-one percent do not believe them and 27 percent said they “don’t know” what to believe.

The responses were divided largely along partisan lines - about two-thirds of Democrats said they believed the allegations and nearly two-thirds of Republicans said they did not.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-poll/four-in-10-believe-allegations-against-kavanaugh-three-in-10-do-not-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1MA10D

 

[Arete]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Half the country voted for D Trump.

26% of eligible voters voted for Trump, 26% voted for Hillary, and 48% did not vote. 

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, Arete said:

26% of eligible voters voted for Trump, 26% voted for Hillary, and 48% did not vote. 

You are looking at the wrong statistic. Republicans won more than half the seats: 306 Republican to 232 Dems. It should be based on individual votes but isn't, and I think that''s what MigL means.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are looking at the wrong statistic. Republicans won more than half the seats: 306 Republican to 232 Dems. It should be based on individual votes but isn't, and I think that''s what MigL means.

We can all assume various things based on what individuals type. 

We all know MigL is more than capable of defending himself. 

But I have no idea how you give such a charitable interpretation based on these words alone, equal for all of us to see:

[Arete]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are looking at the wrong statistic.

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Half the country voted for D Trump.

11 minutes ago, Arete said:

26% of eligible voters voted for Trump

Nope. Half the country didn't bother to vote. of the half that did, around half o them voted for Hillary and around half voted for Trump. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Half the country voted for D Trump.
They wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

 

This post was supposed to merge with my previous. X-posted w Arete

[rangerx]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

None of which has anything to do with the alleged assault or #metoo, but for Kavanaugh's demeanor in the hearings itself.

Women don't need to weaponize the movement and make shit up whatsoever while conservative judges knowingly lie under oath.

Gee... no accusations of a perjury trap like Trump and Juliani would have everyone believe? Because there's no such thing, that's why. One can only perjure one's self and Kavanaugh did that on multiple counts.

And besides that even if the OP were true (which it isn't), dishonest judges are far more insidious than dishonest citizens any day of the week.

That's why we appoint honest judges, under the highest scrutiny to try and incarcerate dishonest citizens, not persecute political opponents.

In the rare, but not unlikely event anyone wrongly accuses anyone, they deserve to go before an honest judge for sentencing. Nothing new there, hence the OP is a false narrative.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Women don't need to weaponize the movement and make shit up whatsoever while conservative judges knowingly lie under oath.

I do understand MigL initial point about taking sexual assault claims as gospel without due process but I think MigL chose the wrong case to center the conversation around. Kavanaugh when given time to speak showed himself to be a deeply partisan, belligerent, a liar, and divorced from the concept of service or accountability. Numerous character witness, a book written by a friend, a police report from a bar fight, and Kavanaugh's own words in his yearbook also describe him as an angry to violent drunk. If we add up the circumstantial evidence along side Kavanaugh's lying and aggressive public behavior there is no reason to take Kavanaugh at his word. When provided an opportunity to set the record straight Kavanaugh instead lunched into attacks against the Clintons, challenged the drinking habits of those not under inquiry, and refuse to say whether he thought an investigation was in order. MigL is asking where Kavanaugh's due process is meanwhile Kavanaugh has been provided opportunities to clear his name and squandered it. Ford and the other 2 women accusing Kavanaugh of Sexual Assault could be mstake or lying yet none have done anything to indicate they are. Everyone, even MigL, agree Ford's testimony was credible. So the he said she said game is played played out between she the credible witness vs he the belligerent liar.   

[swansont]

On 10/3/2018 at 6:15 AM, Ten oz said:

 Also Kavanaugh's friend who was named as present during the Ford attack wrote a book title "Wasted" about his own alcoholism leading up to treatment and in in the book his frequent drinking partner was a Bart O' Kavanaugh . The book was released in 1997 which also well pre-dates the 2016 election.

It would be interesting to see of Kavanaugh signed a waiver for this book.

24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do understand MigL initial point about taking sexual assault claims as gospel without due process 

But nothing like that is actually happening, or happened in this case. It's a strawman.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

But nothing like that is actually happening, or happened in this case. It's a strawman.

Straw Lady in this case...

From the CNN article linked in my second post:

Sen. Mazie Hirono said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change"

and later:

"Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. They need to be believed," Hirono said her Democratic colleagues Tuesday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

But nothing like that is actually happening, or happened in this case. It's a strawman.

Yes, that is the short version of the rest of my post. 

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Straw Lady in this case...

From the CNN article linked in my second post:

Sen. Mazie Hirono said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change"

and later:

"Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. They need to be believed," Hirono said her Democratic colleagues Tuesday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Step up and do the right thing is something we all should strive to do. Nothing objectionable there in my opinion. Saying  Ford needs to be believed doesn't negate due process. If you walk into your local law enforcement office to file a complaint wouldn't you like to be believed? Of course a thorough investigation would follow but upfront shouldn't one be treated with respect?  How would you feel if your house were robbed and after calling law enforcement they showed up to take your statement full of suspicion, doubt, and repeatedly challenging whether or not you made the whole thing up. That wouldn't be good service. Rather they would show up and take you complaint at face value and treat you with respect. Then they'd investigate. 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Straw Lady in this case...

From the CNN article linked in my second post:

Sen. Mazie Hirono said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change"

and later:

"Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard, but they need to be believed. They need to be believed," Hirono said her Democratic colleagues Tuesday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

I don't follow you. You seem to be arguing in support of the OP. This is admonishing people for their knee-jerk denial and disbelief, and telling them not to do that. It's not a matter of "taking sexual assault claims as gospel without due process" 

Going from "believe them" to "believe them without question and chuck due process out the window" and I frankly don't know how one can make such a huge leap. (It's reminiscent of the disconnect with Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter, taking a statement and ignoring the context of it) 

[mistermack]

On 9/23/2018 at 1:09 PM, rangerx said:

Ford is calling for an FBI investigation. Kavanaugh is not.

That pretty much tells you everything anyone needs to know.

No it doesn't. If her purpose is to block his appointment till after the next election, then the FBI investigation she is proposing does just that. Donald Duck has proposed a quickie investigation that will defeat that objective. It's a game of chess. 

I heard her giving evidence, and I thought it was an act. I thought they gave her far too much respect. She's either lying or telling the truth. That needed testing out rather more vigorously than what I saw. 

What's changed over thirty years? He's been around all that time, not in hiding. The only thing that's changed is he's up for the job. Therefore, it's patently obvious that the only reason she's come out with it is to stop him getting the job. All of the rest of it is an act. She could have done it all years ago, but didn't. So in the tiny chance that she's telling the truth, I would say "tough, you left it too long. Thirty years too long".

If I was a Democrat Senator I'd be voting for him now. Not just because I think she's lying, but because I think they are corrupting the system by using the tactic of last minute allegation. Trump won the election, like it or not. 

 

Having said all that, I don't feel sorry for Kavanaugh. I believe he worked for Ken Starr against Clinton, so if he loses the job, it's rough justice. In fact, I have a feeling there is some tit for tat stuff going on under the counter with this, so to me, it's amusing either way.

[rangerx]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do understand MigL initial point about taking sexual assault claims as gospel without due process but I think MigL chose the wrong case to center the conversation around.

I'm not buying it. The OP suggests malicious prosecution is something new to be exploited by women for being sexually attacked, politically driven or not at all. It's nothing new. It's been the law of the land for centuries and must be repudiated at every turn. The whole premise of hearings are to bring issues to the forefront. Issues with Kavanaugh came to the forefront. The same goes for financial disclosure, as to not give the appearance of impropriety. that went out the window with Trump, who's in your face with corruption.

Trump mocking Dr. Ford was reprehensible. Blaming the accuser is worse today than it was yesterday and  It will be worse when they vote to admit Kavanaugh.

That's the reality of the issue.

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yes, that is the short version of the rest of my post. 

Step up and do the right thing is something we all should strive to do. Nothing objectionable there in my opinion. Saying  Ford needs to be believed doesn't negate due process. If you walk into your local law enforcement office to file a complaint wouldn't you like to be believed? Of course a thorough investigation would follow but upfront shouldn't one be treated with respect?  How would you feel if your house were robbed and after calling law enforcement they showed up to take your statement full of suspicion, doubt, and repeatedly challenging whether or not you made the whole thing up. That wouldn't be good service. Rather they would show up and take you complaint at face value and treat you with respect. Then they'd investigate. 

 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't follow you. You seem to be arguing in support of the OP. This is admonishing people for their knee-jerk denial and disbelief, and telling them not to do that. It's not a matter of "taking sexual assault claims as gospel without due process" 

Going from "believe them" to "believe them without question and chuck due process out the window" and I frankly don't know how one can make such a huge leap. (It's reminiscent of the disconnect with Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter, taking a statement and ignoring the context of it) 

Hirono had plenty of opportunity to make clear the context you are suggesting. She did not.

The strong and intended implication was to "shut up" (her words) and take without question any statement made by an accuser. That was the message she wanted sent out to the country, not one of a reasonable call to withhold judgement.

...and yes, I would argue in support of the OP, a reasonable, moderate and balanced position IMO.

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell