B Kavanough and MeToo

[Arete]

Ford came forward when Kavanaugh was on the list of potential nominees for the supreme court. 

The choice to make her complaint public when he was nominated was a strategic move by Democrats. The fact that Republicans ALREADY had 65 signatures to counter that move was strategic. Everything about this nomination on both sides is premeditated and strategic. 

Anyone who doesn't see that Kavanaugh is a chess piece in a larger game for ideological control of the supreme court is at best naive - having partisan control of the supreme court would allow one party to block, create or dismantle laws for a generation.

I have seen men standing in front of the "Women for Kavanaugh" bus admitting that they really don't care what he did, as long as he will strike down Roe v Wade - that an imperfect man can be a divine instrument of God. I'm sure there are people on the left who don't care if he's a choir boy but will do whatever it takes to stop him being elected. 

What shouldn't happen is for EITHER of these mentalities to prevail - an unsuitable candidate shouldn't be railroaded through, and a suitable candidate shouldn't be unduly smeared and defamed. 

*I* personally believe that Kavanaugh's testimony at the hearing clearly displayed unsuitability for the job. He lost his cool, bent the truth, evaded questions and used logical fallacies. These are exactly the types of things judges should be able to easily identify and eliminate from testimony as a part of their job. If he uses them himself, I wouldn't trust him to recognize them in the courtroom.  

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Arete said:

These are exactly the types of things judges should be able to easily identify and eliminate from testimony as a part of their job. If he uses them himself, I wouldn't trust him to recognize them in the courtroom.  

I’ve been engaged with family on this topic on FB, primarily with a lawyer sibling and all of their lawyer friends. I must say they all primarily come down heavily on Kavenaughs side and tend to use obvious fallacies about twice per post.

It’s shown me that they live in a world where lies are okay and all that matters is winning at any cost. Perhaps we need to be more clear eyed about the world this judge has existed in for his entire life. 

As others have said, none of this is about truth. It’s about power. 

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, Arete said:

Ford came forward when Kavanaugh was on the list of potential nominees for the supreme court. 

The choice to make her complaint public when he was nominated was a strategic move by Democrats. The fact that Republicans ALREADY had 65 signatures to counter that move was strategic. Everything about this nomination on both sides is premeditated and strategic. 

Anyone who doesn't see that Kavanaugh is a chess piece in a larger game for ideological control of the supreme court is at best naive - having partisan control of the supreme court would allow one party to block, create or dismantle laws for a generation.

I have seen men standing in front of the "Women for Kavanaugh" bus admitting that they really don't care what he did, as long as he will strike down Roe v Wade - that an imperfect man can be a divine instrument of God. I'm sure there are people on the left who don't care if he's a choir boy but will do whatever it takes to stop him being elected. 

What shouldn't happen is for EITHER of these mentalities to prevail - an unsuitable candidate shouldn't be railroaded through, and a suitable candidate shouldn't be unduly smeared and defamed. 

*I* personally believe that Kavanaugh's testimony at the hearing clearly displayed unsuitability for the job. He lost his cool, bent the truth, evaded questions and used logical fallacies. These are exactly the types of things judges should be able to easily identify and eliminate from testimony as a part of their job. If he uses them himself, I wouldn't trust him to recognize them in the courtroom.  

 

 

On 10/3/2018 at 1:00 PM, Ten oz said:

I think you are misrepresenting the facts regarding how events played out. Ford notified Here Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) On July 6th before Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump and requested information on how she could share her account. Then on July 20th a couple weeks after the nomination Ford reached out to Senator Feinstein and offered up time frames in August when she'd be available to discuss the matter. Ford request confidentiality. Ford then lawyered up and took a polygraph on August 7th Here. Senator Feinstein referred the situation to the FBI Sept 12th. Between the time Ford outline her availability to Feinstein and the time Feinstein referred matters to the FBI was only a month and not a couple months. Ford reached out to Congress on her own and was rather persistent about it doing so before and after Kavanaugh was nominated. While Ford did request the matter be kept confidential she also made herself available to both speak with Feinstein and take a polygraph. Lastly Feinstein denies leaking the story. If you follow the timeline by early Sept. Ford already had lawyers and had taken a polygraph test. So by that time more people than just Feinstein knew about the allegations. The leaks could have come from one a few different place. 

 

 

How long Feinstein knew about Ford's claims is exaggerated in many reports. Feinstein was sent a letter by Ford weeks after Kavanaugh had been nominated. Assuming you accept there was any vetting done by Feinstein's office and with the knowledge that Ford requested confidentiality I think the matter was referred to the FBI by Feinstein in a perfectly reasonable amount of time.  Also no Democrat sought out Ford. It was Ford herself who sent the letter, got lawyers, and took a polygraph prior to any Democratic politician getting involved. It is a characterization of events to say this has all been some strategic move by Democrats. Ford set these events in motion.

The Democratic party presently have not control. If was Sen. Flakes (Republican) who forced a delay on Kavanaugh's vote so this matter could be investigated by the FBI. Republicans can and might hold a vote this Friday if they choose. Democrats can't do anything to stop that. The current session of Congress lasts till January 3rd. Republicans can vote Kavanaugh, or another nominee, whenever they'd like between now and then. Also the Supreme Court has been 5-4 Republican appointed Justices for the last couple decades. Justice Kennedy, whom Kavanaugh would replace, was put on the court by Ronald Reagan. It was Scalia's replacement (Garland) who would have swung balance of the the Court 5-4 Democrat appointed Judges. Of course Democrats would prefer to have their pick and of course they will fight much as they can against any Republican nominee but it is an overstatement to imply they have any juice here. Republicans control the Senate and can hold a vote whenever they are ready. The problem Republicans are having at the moment is a self inflicted one. They nominated a loyalist rather than a safe choice. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Believing a report doesn't preclude a proper investigation. 

Or rather the opposite is true. If law enforcement does not believe the victim, it typically does not to to a prosecutor. In the particular quotes as, already mentioned, due process has not entered yet, as obviously the case has not entered the judicial system. And in fact, if there is no assumption of credibility of the victim, they won't. Due process therefore cannot come before assessment of the credibility of the victim. 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The point I was making Rangerx, is that if the FBI investigation is curtailed, we may never know who actually committed a crime as C Blasey Ford has no interest in further pursuing the matter and filing charges

And I think it is important to recall again what this process here is. It is not a judicial process. It is designed as a kind of political interview in which  the public and the committee gets a sense of the candidate, depending on issues political points can be scored already as this step (though it used to be rarer in the past). Then, based on the overall performance, political capital can be gained by voting a given direction. In Gorsuch's confirmation Democrats in red states scored points by voting for a conservative judge, for example. Thus, the overall process is centered solely around the candidate to assess their suitability as a judge at the supreme court. As such veracity of credibility of the claim are (at least based on the mechanism of the process) secondary to how the candidate deals with it (again, think assessment center, if you are familiar with those). There is of course the political overlay over all this, as Arete and others have pointed out which has become more aggressive over the years (some point to the rise of Gingrich as the starting point). 

However, what I do see is there is a a lot of conflation of issues that make a discussion almost impossible as you can just take any one aspect with limited or no context and use it to attack the rest.

 

[rangerx]

42 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

How long Feinstein knew about Ford's claims is exaggerated in many reports. Feinstein was sent a letter by Ford weeks after Kavanaugh had been nominated. Assuming you accept there was any vetting done by Feinstein's office and with the knowledge that Ford requested confidentiality I think the matter was referred to the FBI by Feinstein in a perfectly reasonable amount of time.  Also no Democrat sought out Ford. It was Ford herself who sent the letter, got lawyers, and took a polygraph prior to any Democratic politician getting involved. It is a characterization of events to say this has all been some strategic move by Democrats. Ford set these events in motion.

Does anyone in their right mind actually believe republicans would have beeen forthright and thorough ordering the investigatation in confidence.

I don't. It would have been thrown back in their faces with a resounding no. Even after the fact when an investigation was ordered, it was a sham.
 

Edited October 4, 2018 by rangerx

[CharonY]

Of course not. Kavanaugh is almost certainly to be confirmed. That is what the numbers indicate. Clarence Thomas was also confirmed, so I doubt you will have many folks being surprised at that. And of course there is the political capital to be gained. Dems can say that they support victims of abuse and Reps can claim that they protected the real powerless victims: men. It does not matter that the process was actually designed with a different goal in mind.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Based on what?

 

Meaning it was not obvious, and it was not my claim that the inference was obvious; I objected to that claim. So your response is not directed at the correct person.

But really, the contention that a sitting US Senator (at least, one who has not abandoned historical norms to support an autocrat) is calling for the abolition of due process, in violation of the Constitution, does not strike me as a reasoned, or reasonable, interpretation of the statement. And I am not aware of any news reports describing it as such. That would be newsworthy, would it not?

I based it on watching her being interviewed, and questioned directly on it, and instead of clarifying that she meant closer to what you believe she instead she doubled down on it. It certainly was and is newsworthy and is already a factor in the election campaign. If it is not obvious to you yet it should be soon.

 

 

[mistermack]

I have a feeling Kavanaugh will get his revenge once he's confirmed. This process is bound to sway his decision on matters that he might have wavered on.

On the subject of his accuser, I still can't believe the easy ride she got when being quizzed. She waited 36 years, saying nothing, and only said something when he looked like being nominated. She should have been vigorously tested on that. Not just to be fair to Kavanaugh, but to be fair to the PROCESS of selecting the judges, which she might very well be attempting to corrupt. To me, her tactics stink.

She's a psychology professor, but she took a lie detector test. What that tells me, is that it's the public perception that was her motive, from the start. She would know perfectly well the zero value of the result, and how polygraphs "work", and how to beat them. The result either way is meaningless. And she's lied about them as well, when asked if she has ever given advice on them. (according to a former boyfriend). 

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I have a feeling Kavanaugh will get his revenge once he's confirmed. This process is bound to sway his decision on matters that he might have wavered on.

On the subject of his accuser, I still can't believe the easy ride she got when being quizzed. She waited 36 years, saying nothing, and only said something when he looked like being nominated. She should have been vigorously tested on that. Not just to be fair to Kavanaugh, but to be fair to the PROCESS of selecting the judges, which she might very well be attempting to corrupt. To me, her tactics stink.

She's a psychology professor, but she took a lie detector test. What that tells me, is that it's the public perception that was her motive, from the start. She would know perfectly well the zero value of the result, and how polygraphs "work", and how to beat them. The result either way is meaningless. And she's lied about them as well, when asked if she has ever given advice on them. (according to a former boyfriend). 

She might. Or she might not.

But it was odd that she would have taken one and not understood how they work, and even after the fact not found out. One would think she would have had a professional interest, on top of the obvious (obvious to me...) one of finding out how much credibility it would add or not add to her allegations.

[MigL]

I don't blame C Blasey Ford who, according to Ten oz's account, took the polygraph test on Aug 7th.

This is over two weeks after contacting Senator  D Feinstein and over a month after contacting A Eshoo ( who referred her to D Feinstein )
I would think she was advised on how to best make her accusations public. IOW so as to have the most impact.
I would assume C Blasey Ford would know about the uselessness of a lie detector test, but would be 'advised' that it would make a great impact on the public at large. From what I've read, D Feinstein isn't above planting disinformation.

There are very few, if any, politicians who haven't contributed to this mess.

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She might. Or she might not.

But it was odd that she would have taken one and not understood how they work, and even after the fact not found out. One would think she would have had a professional interest, on top of the obvious (obvious to me...) one of finding out how much credibility it would add or not add to her allegations.

If she didn't take one a certain amount of people would be questioning why not. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Those who don't want to believe her can find suspicion in everything she does. Much like the her detractors primary complaint about why after so long and why now. First Statistically most victims never come forward at all and of the ones who do it is common for them to do so after a long period of time after they have been able to emotionally come to terms with it. How long she waited is normal. Secondly Kavanaugh being appointed to a very high profile position put him back in her life. Prior to him being considered for SCOTUS Ford wasn't forced to see his face or name repeatedly on a regular basis. 

In defending Kavanaugh's with such arguments the subtle message of speak up immediately after an assualt or forever hold their peace is being reenforced. Kavanaugh can get his due diligence without the use of such disingenuous talking points. The FBI could be given the authority to interview Kavanaugh and his accusers and run a thorough investigation. This matter doesn't need to be a bunch of anonymous people on Twitter and Facebook asking why now. 

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

From what I've read, D Feinstein isn't above planting disinformation.

Do you have a citiation for these crimes you are casually implying Feinstein has committed? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

If she didn't take one a certain amount of people would be questioning why not. It is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Those who don't want to believe her can find suspicion in everything she does. Much like the her detractors primary complaint about why after so long and why now. First Statistically most victims never come forward at all and of the ones who do it is common for them to do so after a long period of time after they have been able to emotionally come to terms with it. How long she waited is normal. Secondly Kavanaugh being appointed to a very high profile position put him back in her life. Prior to him being considered for SCOTUS Ford wasn't forced to see his face or name repeatedly on a regular basis. 

In defending Kavanaugh's with such arguments the subtle message of speak up immediately after an assualt or forever hold their peace is being reenforced. Kavanaugh can get his due diligence without the use of such disingenuous talking points. The FBI could be given the authority to interview Kavanaugh and his accusers and run a thorough investigation. This matter doesn't need to be a bunch of anonymous people on Twitter and Facebook asking why now. 

Do you have a citiation for these crimes you are casually implying Feinstein has committed? 

Understood wrt the bold. Though we have no idea how statistics should enter the discussion of this case in particular.

I am not defending Kavanaugh with this argument. I am wondering why the question wasn't raised by anyone during the hearing, or by the FBI in their investigation. 

Planting disinformation, on it's own, is not a crime.

[Phi for All]

So half the US is saying "Wait, let's slow down and be more thoughtful about this", but the GOP wants to move forward over those objections. Many are saying, "Stop, we don't need to rush into something so important", but the Republicans are ignoring that and are just doing what they want to do anyway. The concern is about sexual assaults, and the Republican leadership is treating this concern in the same manner that caused the concern in the first place. It's becoming more clear each day those old boys are going to ram this through despite heavy protests.

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So half the US is saying "Wait, let's slow down and be more thoughtful about this", but the GOP wants to move forward over those objections. Many are saying, "Stop, we don't need to rush into something so important", but the Republicans are ignoring that and are just doing what they want to do anyway. The concern is about sexual assaults, and the Republican leadership is treating this concern in the same manner that caused the concern in the first place. It's becoming more clear each day those old boys are going to ram this through despite heavy protests.

Obviously there is more to it than that but, rhetoric aside, that pretty much sums it up.

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So half the US is saying "Wait, let's slow down and be more thoughtful about this", but the GOP wants to move forward over those objections. Many are saying, "Stop, we don't need to rush into something so important", but the Republicans are ignoring that and are just doing what they want to do anyway. The concern is about sexual assaults, and the Republican leadership is treating this concern in the same manner that caused the concern in the first place. It's becoming more clear each day those old boys are going to ram this through despite heavy protests.

I don't know if you ever what Trevor Noah or not but yesterday he made a great point about the way Trump uses victimhood. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LZ3P1sv9jE

 

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Understood wrt the bold. Though we have no idea how statistics should enter the discussion of this case in particular.

I am not defending Kavanaugh with this argument. I am wondering why the question wasn't raised by anyone during the hearing, or by the FBI in their investigation. 

Planting disinformation, on it's own, is not a crime.

Republicans could have asked Ford whatever they wanted and it is the White House who has prevented the FBI from interviewing Ford. It is those defending Kavanaugh who have prevented these things you are referencing from happening and not vice versa. 

Quote

 

The FBI hasn’t interviewed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford because it doesn’t have clear authority from the White House to do so, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

Instead, the White House has indicated to the FBI that testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford, who has accused him of attempting to rape her when they were in high school, before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week is sufficient, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the sensitive matter.

http://time.com/5414812/fbi-white-house-approval-kavanugh-ford/

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

Republicans could have asked Ford whatever they wanted and it is the White House who has prevented the FBI from interviewing Ford. It is those defending Kavanaugh who have prevented these things you are referencing from happening and not vice versa. 

 

Republicans and Democrats. I can see why neither wanted to, especially in a public forum, though for very different reasons,

Mitchell maybe not due to time constraints?...but the FBI certainly had the opportunity to, and for some reason chose not to. They had plenty of time to do it even within the limited time they took for the investigation. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

 I would think she was advised on how to best make her accusations public. IOW so as to have the most impact.

She did not want to go public. That didn't happen until her identity was leaked to the press, and they started showing up at her home and even her classroom. She first shared details to try and keep Kavanaugh from being nominated, after seeing he was on the short list, but the information didn't passed along in time.

 

[Ten oz]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Republicans and Democrats. I can see why neither wanted to, especially in a public forum, though for very different reasons,

Mitchell maybe not due to time constraints?...but the FBI certainly had the opportunity to, and for some reason chose not to. They had plenty of time to do it even within the limited time they took for the investigation. 

Between Republicans and Democrats only Democrats who are being accused of character assassination against Kavanaugh. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

She did not want to go public. That didn't happen until her identity was leaked to the press, and they started showing up at her home and even her classroom. She first shared details to try and keep Kavanaugh from being nominated, after seeing he was on the short list, but the information didn't passed along in time.

 

Right. She hoped an anonymous uncorroborated allegation would suffice on it's own. If I hadn't seen her testimony I would not have thought this was plausible from someone with a PhD.

[Ten oz]

It a bit of corroboration with Bob Woodward book "Fear" where Woodard outlines Trump's approach to dealing with accusations from women  is to "deny, deny, deny and push back"Here.Trump criticized Al Franken for "fold up like a wet rag". It is both disturbing and insightful. Trump implies that Franken was weak, a "wet rag", for not pushing back and fighting his accuser while at the same time Trump is being total indifferent to whether or not Franken was guilty. It is Al Franken's failure to deny & push back Trump is mocking and not the sexual misconduct he was guilty of. Al Franken conceding to misbehavior is what Trump sees worth criticism. Whether a person is guilty or innocent Trump seems to think a strong man, which by default in Trumpism is a good man, should fight. Such views held by men with so much power is one of the reasons women do not come forward. It is sad. In resigning Franken did what I wish all guilt parties would do and Trump is mocking him for not being petulant and re-victimizing his accuser with denials and push back. 

 

Quote

 

The president mentioned Franken while referencing Tina Smith, who was appointed to Franken’s Senate seat after he resigned, the Timesreported.

“Nobody knows who the hell she is,” Trump said. “She took a wacky guy’s place.

“He was wacky. Boy, did he fold up like a wet rag, huh? Man. Man. He was gone so fast -- “I don’t want to mention Al Franken’s name, OK, so I won’t mention.

“Oh, he did something,” Trump continued. “‘Oh, oh, oh, I resign, I quit.’”

https://www.ajc.com/news/trump-mocks-franken-fast-resignation-during-minnesota-rally/Qrf6WMXzT9uQxoAWeEQz9M/

 

 

[CharonY]

There is a quite astute observation made by a comedian.

Quote

“I find Trump’s most powerful tool is that he knows how to wield victimhood,” he said.

In an impassioned, unscripted monologue that was not part of Thursday’s broadcast, Noah called out Trump for trying to “convince men that they are the true victims of the #MeToo movement.” The president has used the tactic to defend his Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, who faces several allegations of sexual misconduct. The judge has denied those allegations.

 

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is a quite astute observation made by a comedian.

 

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't know if you ever what Trevor Noah or not but yesterday he made a great point about the way Trump uses victimhood. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LZ3P1sv9jE

[CharonY]

 

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Oopsie. Thread fast. Brain slow (also slight aversion against videos).

Edited October 5, 2018 by CharonY

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right. She hoped an anonymous uncorroborated allegation would suffice on it's own. If I hadn't seen her testimony I would not have thought this was plausible from someone with a PhD.

Depends on your expectations, and you don't know what hers were. If the warning had reached high enough, and in time, the WH could have directed an unpublicized investigation, if they had wanted to.  They could hit the pause button, because when one credible accusation turns up, there are often others that will come to light, as we have seen time and time again.

Of course, this assumes that the WH cared whether or not they were nominating someone who could be credibly accused of such behavior.

59 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It a bit of corroboration with Bob Woodward book "Fear" where Woodard outlines Trump's approach to dealing with accusations from women  is to "deny, deny, deny and push back"Here.Trump criticized Al Franken for "fold up like a wet rag". It is both disturbing and insightful. Trump implies that Franken was weak, a "wet rag", for not pushing back and fighting his accuser while at the same time Trump is being total indifferent to whether or not Franken was guilty. It is Al Franken's failure to deny & push back Trump is mocking and not the sexual misconduct he was guilty of. Al Franken conceding to misbehavior is what Trump sees worth criticism. Whether a person is guilty or innocent Trump seems to think a strong man, which by default in Trumpism is a good man, should fight. Such views held by men with so much power is one of the reasons women do not come forward. It is sad. In resigning Franken did what I wish all guilt parties would do and Trump is mocking him for not being petulant and re-victimizing his accuser with denials and push back. 

It shows why zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent. Because they will say that if they are, or if they aren't (and are running the Trump playbook). So the declaration carries no information at all.

 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

It shows why zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent. Because they will say that if they are, or if they aren't (and are running the Trump playbook). So the declaration carries no information at all.

I wouldn't say zero weight for all people but definitely little to no weight for those supportive or sympathetic to Trumpism, which Kavanaugh absolutely is.