kavanaugh

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

you've lost your mind

He's a get even guy

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He's a get even guy

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."

This is list of personal opinions. If this is persuasive to you, I can see why you think SCOTUS judgments based on personal preference are perfectly OK.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is list of personal opinions. If this is persuasive to you, I can see why you think SCOTUS judgments based on personal preference are perfectly OK.

Of someone who knew him.
Kavanaugh is not standing before a court of law, he is standing before the Senate where opinions and politics are what he will be judged by.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Who got accused with attempted rape?

Please share this information Got Stripers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Who got accused with attempted rape?

Please share this information Got Stripers
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One of the legal websites pieces pretty much mirrors her testimony, but maybe in your mind he needed to actually finish the dead.

"Evidence showing an accused person’s voluntary attempt to remove complainant’s clothes to expose his/her private parts would be sufficient to support conviction for attempted rape, even though no further actions were taken to commit an offense of rape."

[PaulS]

I got to give it to him he does have good taste in music. I called a friend to see if we were at that show as we did see UB40 there once.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

See now there you go, telling me what I know, what you know and not answering either of my questions. I know the difference between right and wrong, I've already agreed the release against her will was wrong; you can give that a rest now.

You brought up the release and I was answering your question re it.

You seemed to be agreeing with K's rant and the GOP position that this entire process was a staged and calculated ploy by the Dem's and if we can believe it Clinton's revenge.

I didn't bring up Clinton's revenge. The Dem ploy was, rightly or wrongly, obvious to me. Didn't need what you refer to as a rant.

I see it as maybe a simple case of one staffer leaking a letter that they probably in hindsight, shouldn't have even had access to, yet that water is over the dam and down river.

You can give that a rest now.

So I wanted clarification from you on why you think this was all a calculated ploy to leak a letter last minute, in order to stall the confirmation and affect the mid terms.

I gave you one explanation.

I made the case, that if that's a plan, it's not a very well thought out one; an early release and early detailed FBI probe would have been far more effective at doing just that.

It's not the first time a not very well thought out plan was attempted.

Then in my last post and since the cat is out of the bag, with an FBI investigation underway; I asked if they presented evidence to support her claim, would that change your opinion of the man or his right I guess to win confirmation.

I guess I'm looking to see if that were to happen, if him lying about the incident would sway your vote, or do you feel is it just a stupid 17 year old getting too liquored up and acting inappropriate and we should move on.

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

The second half of your statement seems poorly thought out. I’m going to assume there was a better way to state what you intended and given time, you might clarify that statement.

Because I’d surely rather trust a justice I vehemently disagree with (John Roberts for example) but whose values and reason seem well equipped then someone whose aren’t surely can’t be trusted to “uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights” with any degree of confidence, regardless of the side of the political spectrum you align with.

If what you say is in fact what you’ve meant, a lot of the clever stabs you make around here regarding your respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves just got a lot cheaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, it would not sway my vote. I certainly have considered that Kavanaugh may be lying about what happened. I have also considered, for some time now, probably the Clinton episode (episodes) was the final straw, that lying (and doing it well) has become a prerequisite to survival in our corrupt milieu of the politics of personal destruction. And studying the past, as I have been doing for the past two decades or so of American politics, and by extension world politics, the beautiful myths of honesty and honor, and idealistic moral character have been exaggerated. "In the course of human events" such as wars, revolutions, political battles, creation of societies, and the search for freedom, those who are totally pure of heart, and never, ever, deceive, even for good and right ends, are prone to lose battles--maybe become martyrs, righteous models, saints, the essence of honor and truth used to persuade new generations to support some cause which inevitably is populated with various malcontents and dissemblers who know how to stir up a crowd with high notions of which they themselves are not purely capable of totally emulating.

I don't doubt that every Senator, lawyer, apparatchik in that room where Kavanaugh was being questioned, lied or were lying about some important incident that promoted their success or saved them from failing.

I am more concerned with the ideological direction of the Supreme Court than in the personal purity of the judges. I would rather have a low level scoundrel who would uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights than have the most honest socialist, communist, or Progressive for whom the Constitution is a living, breathing means to create a version of unlimited government.

I'd agree DC has become a good old boy and girl club, where partisan politics rule the day, Flatks comments about him never pulling that for fear of party retribution if he were running again is proof enough. So if he lied and in front of the senate, where he is running for the highest court in the land, you are ok with that series of lies because they all do it. That's a sad commentary on acceptance of what our system has become and being ok with just throwing another lier into the system. Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer, but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Now I'm going to grant you, he has yet to be proven a lyer,

the most sensible thing you've written in a while..sort of


but I found her testimony far more believable than his denial.

I'm pretty confident it you had 100 people that were unaware of the history, partisan nature of the time prior and they watched her performance and were asked afterward if they thought she was a doctor or a patient...100 would say patient....now you can say something similar about Kavanaugh in the afternoon but the obvious difference was that he'd been under and was continuing to under go vicious assault by some of the most loathsome people on the planet while she was getting a baby oil rub down

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

The second half of your statement seems poorly thought out. I’m going to assume there was a better way to state what you intended and given time, you might clarify that statement.

Because I’d surely rather trust a justice I vehemently disagree with (John Roberts for example) but whose values and reason seem well equipped then someone whose aren’t surely can’t be trusted to “uphold, protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution and its protections of our inalienable rights” with any degree of confidence, regardless of the side of the political spectrum you align with.

If what you say is in fact what you’ve meant, a lot of the clever stabs you make around here regarding your respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves just got a lot cheaper.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I thought that Kavanaugh would not adjudicate by original constitutional text, I would not vote for him even if it were proven that his character was as pure as the white of newly driven snow. Nor would I vote for a judge with a record of Progressive judicial review even if his character was proven so to be.

Kavanaugh's record as a judge gives me as much confidence as I could reasonably be expected to have, that he is a textual originalist.

Good character is a wonderful thing. But at the eleventh hour, when the choice is Kavanaugh with a tainted past he's lied about, or someone picked by a Progressive President choosing on the basis of a judge's past record of Progressive jurisprudence, I'll take Kavanaugh in a heartbeat.

And especially so since it appears that Kavanaugh is no longer, nor has been for several years, the person he is portrayed by some as being when he was 17 years old.

I do not want to be judged now by how I acted as a teenager. And I am not interested in what any of our judges or politicians (the difference between those becoming less discernable as the Court has been shifting toward Progressive ideology) were like as teenagers. Some of the most aggressive and sexually loose men I've known during teen years became the most loving and trustworthy men in their adult years, especially as they married and had children.

I don't mean to be "clever" in my "respect for the constitution, the rule of law and our ability to govern ourselves." I passionately wish to preserve those things. That is why I want to retard and reverse the trend of our federal government becoming, as simply put as some would say, too big for its britches--its britches being the Constitution. If it is allowed to continue on the path of not only intruding in every aspect of our lives, but dictating how we must live, then the Constitution, and the ability to govern ourselves will become a museum piece to be admired as some quaint relic no longer relevant to some currently proscribed society. And we will be ruled by a law that has no limits or boundaries in its ability to define what we can do and who we are.

That may be "extreme" to some, but I think the Constitution as originally meant to be understood is the most moderate structure of an actual practicing government ever conceived. It is, for me, a most reasonable dividing line between lawlessness and tyranny.

Again, I don't see Kavanaugh as a threat to the Constitution. I may be wrong about that. But I don't think I am wrong about the threat of jurists from a Progressive persuasion. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise. I have asked for that discussion many times on this forum. No one from the left or so-called "center" seems to want to engage in that dialogue.

Will you?

[Pete F.]

Why doesn't the FBI want to talk to Kerry Berchem?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why doesn't the FBI want to talk to Kerry Berchem?

BC she appears to have info. that K may have (again) lied in his sworn testimony about when he 1st heard about Ramirez's claims. She may have texts showing K contacted her before the release of the New Yorker Mag. article.

[Sea Dangles]

Would it be rape if she simply blew him?
Fondling is not attempted rape
Grabbing ass is not attempted rape
Gather yourself and come up for air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Would it be rape if she simply blew him?
Fondling is not attempted rape
Grabbing ass is not attempted rape
Gather yourself and come up for air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you understand the "r" word is now banned...that's three strikes

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Would it be rape if she simply blew him?
Fondling is not attempted rape
Grabbing ass is not attempted rape
Gather yourself and come up for air
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you had a daughter reporting a boy forced himself on top of me and tried to take off my clothes and was grinding into me and touching me all over, then put his hand across my mouth when I attempted to call out for help, I'm pretty sure you'd not dismiss it as just a little boy horse play and ass grabbing. And what if she hand not been able to get away, what if he was just a bit less shattered and had more control, the story might have had a far different ending.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

If you had a daughter reporting a 180 lb boy forced himself on top of me and tried to take off my clothes and was grinding into me and touching me all over, then put his hand across my mouth when I attempted to call out for help, I'm pretty sure you'd not dismiss it as just a little boy horse play and ass grabbing. And what if she hand not been able to get away, what if he was just a bit less shattered and had more control, the story might have had a far different ending.

in most states you could call that assault and unlawful restraint. But you need some evidence, at least some. An accusation isn’t evidence. remember the duke lacrosse players?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

I see that now that Lindsay Graham decided to act like a conservative for once, the left hates him again and is making fun of him for being gay. I've seen this a few times in the last few days, including on Saturday Night Live, and by Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, and Bill Maher.

So does the left consider it an insult to be gay now? When did gay become a liberal weapon to use against enemies?

It's kind of hard to keep track of what's acceptable and what's not, when the goal posts might as well be on a carnival Tilt-A-Wheel ride, they're moving around so fast.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

When did gay become a liberal weapon to use against enemies?

everything is a political weapon for the left and their media accomplices...they are political terrorists, they like having everyone live in fear of their attacks and retribution

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

everything is a political weapon for the left and their media accomplices...they are political terrorists, they like having everyone live in fear of their attacks and retribution

i know, it’s just funny, the left pats themselves on the back for advocating for gay rights, but now it’s acceptable to make fun of people you suspect to be gay? or is it only acceptable to weaponize homosexuality against conservatives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Who's chasing the laser pointer now?

[Pete F.]

A simple question
What choices, if any, have you made in your life so that you would not be sexually assaulted?
Now ask your wife, sister, mother or daughter that question.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A simple question
What choices, if any, have you made in your life so that you would not be sexually assaulted?
Now ask your wife, sister, mother or daughter that question.

women have it rough, no question.

Nonetheless, an accusation isn’t evidence.

ask your sons what they are doing to prevent being falsely accused of something which is almost impossible to disprove. there are two sides to this, two people involved. Both deserve consideration, not just the one which serves your agenda.

have you noticed that in the statues of lady justice, she’s always blindfolded? Do you know the purpose of the blindfold? Gender doesnt imply credibility.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

women have it rough, no question.

Nonetheless, an accusation isn’t evidence.

ask your sons what they are doing to prevent being falsely accused of something which is almost impossible to disprove. there are two sides to this, two people involved. Both deserve consideration, not just the one which serves your agenda.

have you noticed that in the statues of lady justice, she’s always blindfolded? Do you know the purpose of the blindfold? Gender doesnt imply credibility.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conflating Sexual Assault with False Accusations is a great methodology for reducing the importance of women being assaulted.
I'll play that game.
How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault?

What can you do? Its false so its a lie, there is nothing anybody can do to stop somebody from lying.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Conflating Sexual Assault with False Accusations is a great methodology for reducing the importance of women being assaulted.
I'll play that game.
How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault?

"Conflating Sexual Assault with False Accusations is a great methodology for reducing the importance of women being assaulted.
"

Only a thoughtless person says that mentioning one, is necessarily conflating it with the other. I said both parties are deserving of consideration.


"How many things have you done in your life so that you were not falsely accused of Sexual Assault"

Not much you can do.

[Got Stripers]

Ford was wrong thinking that she could keep this from getting out, DC could use an army of plumbers to plug all the leaks on both sides of the aisle. Feinstein on receipt of the letter should have reached out to Ford and insisted for her cooperation if she was that concerned about his confirmation. Clearly this should have come out on receipt or at least concerns should have been raised, even if you couldn't put a name to the accusations.

The where is the evidence argument is crap, someone please tell me what kind of evidence exists in a sexual assault case, not like they had smart phones back then and were putting it out on YouTube. I'm sure the thousands of women and boys out there who come forward later in life would be so happy at the outpouring of support and empathy. I would also suggest that a victim of this type of assault isn't ever going to forget who did it, I'm not buying into her mistaking him for someone else.

I was a skinny kid growing up in high school and I can remember every single person by first and last name who bullied me and caused me severe emotional distress. Do I remember the exact day, date or event those traumas happened, no I don't; but I remember vividly who the F-heads were. Point is when anyone experiences severe trauma at the hands of another, you don't EVER forget their faces or their names.

I have empathy for her, for him (if proven innocent of the charges) and the families of both. Public office is not for the weak of heart, but this isn't some low level cabinet post and these are serious charges and speak to his character. I'm not as forgiving as some might be of what might have happened when the man was 17, because at 17 you should be responsible for your behavior; almost everyone on this board would be held accountable at that age.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I have empathy for her, for him (if proven innocent of the charges) and the families of both.

Therein lies the problem, he should need to be proven guilty, not proven innocent. But that's not how things work these days.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Therein lies the problem, he should need to be proven guilty, not proven innocent. But that's not how things work these days.

This is a Senate hearing, not a court of law.
He will not be sentenced to anything here, only rewarded if he is confirmed.
Brent Kavanaugh is a lawyer and a very experienced washington politician, he knows exactly what game he is playing and what the stakes are, he played this game himself for years.
One could say that this is retribution for Merrick Garland, but there were a hundred other federal judicial positions left unfilled by the republican congress during Obama's last two years. It is a political game for control of the third branch of the federal government, make no mistake about it. It has very little to do with voters and their choices, far more to do with money and power.
Neither side is without guilt here, Flake said if he was running he could not have delayed the vote. There would have been political consequences that he could not have withstood. Is that acceptable?
I think without term and contribution limits this will never end.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Ford was wrong thinking that she could keep this from getting out, DC could use an army of plumbers to plug all the leaks on both sides of the aisle. Feinstein on receipt of the letter should have reached out to Ford and insisted for her cooperation if she was that concerned about his confirmation. Clearly this should have come out on receipt or at least concerns should have been raised, even if you couldn't put a name to the accusations.

The where is the evidence argument is crap, someone please tell me what kind of evidence exists in a sexual assault case, not like they had smart phones back then and were putting it out on YouTube. I'm sure the thousands of women and boys out there who come forward later in life would be so happy at the outpouring of support and empathy. I would also suggest that a victim of this type of assault isn't ever going to forget who did it, I'm not buying into her mistaking him for someone else.

I was a skinny kid growing up in high school and I can remember every single person by first and last name who bullied me and caused me severe emotional distress. Do I remember the exact day, date or event those traumas happened, no I don't; but I remember vividly who the F-heads were. Point is when anyone experiences severe trauma at the hands of another, you don't EVER forget their faces or their names.

I have empathy for her, for him (if proven innocent of the charges) and the families of both. Public office is not for the weak of heart, but this isn't some low level cabinet post and these are serious charges and speak to his character. I'm not as forgiving as some might be of what might have happened when the man was 17, because at 17 you should be responsible for your behavior; almost everyone on this board would be held accountable at that age.

"The where is the evidence argument is crap"

The hell it is.

"what kind of evidence exists in a sexual assault case"

In cases of assault, there can be all manner of physical evidence. In cases of harassment, usually not so much. It's a tough problem, the common lack of evidence. I don't think the solution is to abandon the presumption of evidence.

Al Sharpton falsely accused white cops of rape. The Duke lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape. Rolling Stone falsely accused a UVA student of rape.

This doesn't mean that all accusers of lying, nor does it mean that the guilty don't deserve severe punishment. But it does mean, that especially in this political climate where nothing matters except winning (especially on the left), that you need more than an accusation.

"I'm not buying into her mistaking him for someone else. "

You don't have to buy it. You just have to admit that there's no proof. She lied about her fear of flying. All 4 witnesses she put there, including a woman who has been a lifelong friend, refuse to corroborate her story. That's evidence. Evidence that she's mistaken, or perhaps lying, I can't know.

" can remember every single person by first and last name who bullied me and caused me severe emotional distress."

So can I. I can also point to cases, as I have done, where people were falsely accused, often for liberal political gain. The fact that you and I can remember the names of our tormentors, means absolutely nothing in this case. You aren't her, neither am I.