if you read the full article I referenced (which I reread this morning), towards the end of the article, it said that Trump tried to get his dad to sign a codicle to his will which would have given Donald full control of the estate when his dad died. Fred refused to sign it so Donald and siblings set up a shell company which would charge dear old daddy excessive expenses and slowly bled Fred's estate nearly dry. When Fred died they also did not execute the affairs of the estate properly.
I'm backing off a bit. I'm just feeling a bit upset over the whole K thing. There's just too much media on it. It's on my phone, its all over the comedy shows, its on our local news. I feel like its just too much to cope with given the nature of the allegations. I can't imagine how horrible it would be for people, having to relive their trauma. Can't stop myself reading and responding on this page though.
Neither of them necessarily, but I do think that the timing is critical to context. I also think that her credibility is suspect at best, and first blush of her testimony for me was that she's a bit of a nutter.
Call me devil's advocate, but it occurred to me that she may be remembering a very vivid dream. I once had a very unpleasant dream (nightmare) in which I did something that I would never do in real life. But the dream was so vivid that it frightened me for days afterwards, and still does sometimes.
The results of the FBI investigation will be very interesting, although we may never know the details. Where's Julian Assange when we need him so badly?
Neither of them necessarily, but I do think that the timing is critical to context.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "timing". As the Merrick Garland (non-)hearings established, the Senate takes as much time as it decides to take. There's no deadline or ticking clock. Unless you mean the fact that Dr. Blasey could document having made these allegations privately back in 2012 and 2013, which does indicate some pretty impressive timing to anticipate Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court half a decade later.
I also think that her credibility is suspect at best, and first blush of her testimony for me was that she's a bit of a nutter.
There's the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty" we've been waiting for! We can always count on @romanlion for those evergreen classics. What's interesting is that Kavanaugh was an evasive ragemonster who told several obvious lies, but it's her credibility that's suspect. The folks at Vox compiled a useful chart comparing Dr. Blasey's cooperative responsiveness to Judge Kavanaugh's. Blue is questions answered directly, red represents questions evaded or filibustered. You can click on the chart at any point to see what the actual statements represented are, which makes it extra useful.
The Washington Post has been able to confirm interviews with only six witnesses, five of whom have a connection to the professor or her allegation.
I'm not sure I get the logic here. One could argue that the Bureau should concentrate only on the allegations made by Dr. Blasey. Alternatively one could make the case that all subsequent allegations should be investigated. I'm not sure I see a coherent logic that would argue one should investigate Dr. Blasey's claims and Deborah Ramirez's, but not Swetnick's or anyone else's. (This assumes that the Washington Post's reporting on this matter is accurate.) I'm also unsure of the logic behind interviewing Ramirez but not any of the (allegedly) twenty or so people she says were witnesses who could back up here story. Or rather, I can see the logic of it if the FBI investigation is supposed to serve as an exculpatory fig leaf for nervous senators, but not if it's supposed to be a serious investigation.
Her testimony was quite consistent with what one would expect from a sufferer from long term PTSD following a sexual attack. I find it hard to believe it was contrived by her for a political purpose, though I have some suspicion that she was being used. It's pretty hard to fabricate that mixture of vivid recall and confusion over incidental detail.
Obviously we heard more from Kavanaugh but I think he was much more evasive than she was. Particularly about both his youthful drunkenness and his overtly sexual comments in the year book. I believe her, rather than him, on the basis of what I heard them both say.
And his partisan self-defence made him look a pretty unsuitable SCOTUS justice.
It looks as though his fate will be determined by three GOP Senators, who all appear to be pretty appalled by Trump's mockery.
Some pollsters are reporting a Kavanaugh surge amongst GOP voters, which may bring more of them out to the polls in the midterms. Now that would be the crowning irony of this hearing. The mobilisation of the revisionist mysogynist tendency.
Her testimony was quite consistent with what one would expect from a sufferer from long term PTSD following a sexual attack. I find it hard to believe it was contrived by her for a political purpose, though I have some suspicion that she was being used. It's pretty hard to fabricate that mixture of vivid recall and confusion over incidental detail.
It's also highly unusual for someone fabricating a story to insert a superfluous witness (Mark Judge). Or to start the fabrication years before it's necessary.
Some pollsters are reporting a Kavanaugh surge amongst GOP voters, which may bring more of them out to the polls in the midterms. Now that would be the crowning irony of this hearing. The mobilisation of the revisionist mysogynist tendency.
With their Islamophobic, homophobic and white supremacist bedfellows. It's a substantial demographic, not to be ignored.
Her testimony was quite consistent with what one would expect from a sufferer from long term PTSD following a sexual attack. I find it hard to believe it was contrived by her for a political purpose, though I have some suspicion that she was being used. It's pretty hard to fabricate that mixture of vivid recall and confusion over incidental detail.
It's also highly unusual for someone fabricating a story to insert a superfluous witness (Mark Judge). Or to start the fabrication years before it's necessary.
Well now, there's a huge news bombshell ! That the FBI 'investigation' into the Kav case has revealed nothing. And that the nomination procedure can continue on, as Mr Trump has planned.
Is "non-gobsmacked" a word? Should be.
Some pollsters are reporting a Kavanaugh surge amongst GOP voters, which may bring more of them out to the polls in the midterms. Now that would be the crowning irony of this hearing. The mobilisation of the revisionist mysogynist tendency.
Yeah, adversity unites and on that basis nominating a drunken misogynist works better than a bland conservative.
I think Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski will vote against Kavanaugh. I wouldn't bet on Flake or Collins joining her. It will be close but Kavanaugh looks as though he will become a Supreme Court Justice.
Her testimony was quite consistent with what one would expect from a sufferer from long term PTSD following a sexual attack. I find it hard to believe it was contrived by her for a political purpose, though I have some suspicion that she was being used.
Some suspicion? She was outed by her activist lawyer, who she was referred to by the ranking dim on the Judiciary committee. The same lawyer who apparently failed to inform her that Senators were willing to take her testimony at a time and place of her convenience to avoid the public spectacle. Couldn't have that...
Obviously we heard more from Kavanaugh but I think he was much more evasive than she was. Particularly about both his youthful drunkenness and his overtly sexual comments in the year book. I believe her, rather than him, on the basis of what I heard them both say.
What do we know about Ford's yearbook, if such nonsense is germane?
And his partisan self-defence made him look a pretty unsuitable SCOTUS justice.
RBG isn't partisan? Obviously she is.
It looks as though his fate will be determined by three GOP Senators, who all appear to be pretty appalled by Trump's mockery.
But he didn't really mock her did he? Basically he just re-stated answers given during her testimony. Mocking her looks more like this., and it's pretty spot on.
I don't doubt that she is a traumatized woman, past present and future, but the total lack of corroboration combined with the way it was rolled out after the hearing was complete leaves me unimpressed. He may not be, but the guy should be confirmed, paid hysterics notwithstanding.
If the Democrats got control of the house, could they institute a follow-up investigation (not that I wish anyone go through that testimony and hearing again)? What would it take to remove a Supreme Court judge?
If the Democrats got control of the house, could they institute a follow-up investigation (not that I wish anyone go through that testimony and hearing again)? What would it take to remove a Supreme Court judge?
Congress can investigate (just about) anything it wants to, so yes, the House Judiciary Committee could investigate Kavanaugh's past if it wanted to. They could theoretically investigate his likely perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee, though protocol dictates that's a matter for the Senate to handle itself. The only real restriction is that they (probably) couldn't subpœna Kavanaugh himself, since he'd be a member of a co-equal branch of government.
To remove a Supreme Court Justice requires impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction by two-thirds of the Senate.
Murkowski has already demonstrated her ability to win her seat even if she loses a primary from her right and has to run as a write-in candidate.
Yeah, but that was before Mazie Hirono read from his record on indigenous rights for Hawai'ians. If she votes for Kavanagh, she'll lose the support of Native Alaskans for sure.
This Kavanaugh. Classic abuser behaviour: he lashes out in uncontrolled anger, apologizes later for that anger, blame others for that anger, then promises that's not "who he is" and says he'll do better in the future. Well f**ck me gently with a chainsaw **.
If the Democrats got control of the house, could they institute a follow-up investigation (not that I wish anyone go through that testimony and hearing again)? What would it take to remove a Supreme Court judge?
Romanlion's right. It would be a terrible move to try and impeach a Supreme Court judge unless they were already tried and convicted of a crime. I would hope that in that case impeachment wouldn't be necessary.
Beware the tale of Newt, he who achieved a majority in Congress (fudged to avoid research) only to run so hard on the President that the neo-liberal bastard got re-elected.
Some pollsters are reporting a Kavanaugh surge amongst GOP voters, which may bring more of them out to the polls in the midterms. Now that would be the crowning irony of this hearing. The mobilisation of the revisionist mysogynist tendency.
Yeah, adversity unites and on that basis nominating a drunken misogynist works better than a bland conservative.
Her testimony was quite consistent with what one would expect from a sufferer from long term PTSD following a sexual attack. I find it hard to believe it was contrived by her for a political purpose, though I have some suspicion that she was being used.
Some suspicion? She was outed by her activist lawyer, who she was referred to by the ranking dim on the Judiciary committee. The same lawyer who apparently failed to inform her that Senators were willing to take her testimony at a time and place of her convenience to avoid the public spectacle. Couldn't have that...
Obviously we heard more from Kavanaugh but I think he was much more evasive than she was. Particularly about both his youthful drunkenness and his overtly sexual comments in the year book. I believe her, rather than him, on the basis of what I heard them both say.
What do we know about Ford's yearbook, if such nonsense is germane?
And his partisan self-defence made him look a pretty unsuitable SCOTUS justice.
RBG isn't partisan? Obviously she is.
It looks as though his fate will be determined by three GOP Senators, who all appear to be pretty appalled by Trump's mockery.
But he didn't really mock her did he? Basically he just re-stated answers given during her testimony. Mocking her looks more like this., and it's pretty spot on.
I don't doubt that she is a traumatized woman, past present and future, but the total lack of corroboration combined with the way it was rolled out after the hearing was complete leaves me unimpressed. He may not be, but the guy should be confirmed, paid hysterics notwithstanding.
You are all that is wrong with America.
As has been noted, her testimony and demeanour were entirely in keeping with someone afflicted by PTSD by an assault and her telling of the story was deeply compelling. BTW, PTSD is much more common after sexual assault (especially when young) than after battlefield experience. Would what we saw in that hearing be enough to obtain a conviction? No. Nor should it be. There's a lot more work that would be needed. But that's not the point. The point is that this is relevant information that - if true - should disqualify someone from being a judge.
But what if he's innocent? He could be. I don't think so, but my opinion does not matter in the slightest. However, how anyone can watch his performance with the committee and think he's suitable to be a judge is mind-boggling and requires incredible cognitive dissonance. But we know that Ford's allegation is false because she conveniently reported it to her therapist only 5 years before Kavanagh's nomination, just in case.... The point is this: I don't have a problem with someone saying they believe Kavanagh is innocent, it's the reasoning that is so faulty. Unbelievably so.
And when Republicans can scream that it's the Dem's playing politics because of the timing, you know they've lost the plot. The only reason there is a time limit is because the GOP fear they might not get him through if they lose the Senate. I'd have some sympathy for this position if it wasn't for the hypocrisy of it all. We know that the GOP would never stall a Supreme Court nomination for political reasons, would they? Never in living memory....
So in order to hold this SC seat, they will risk confirming a sexual offender and tempermentally unsuitable man, in order to appease the prejudices that they have spent years stoking in their base.
Quite apart from the appalling state of US politics, the tainting of the SC is a huge risk to take.
In both the UK and the US, we have the same problem; people who put power and party so far ahead of country...
At this point ISTM that it almost doesn't matter whether the assault happened as far as the confirmation process goes. Kavanaugh has provably lied under oath about his drinking. That should be a disqualification in itself. (For clarity I'm not saying the allegations aren't serious and for my money they're more likely true than not. But even if there aren't, he still shouldn't be confirmed.)
As an active thread participant, I would not normally respond, but this is clear cut. As your apology suggests, you did fail. That quote above from your post is attacking the person (not the issue) and is a Commandment 3 offence. Take it to Hell if you like, but drop it here.
In a normal job interview (and though hardly 'normal,' a job interview is what this process essentially is) an allegation of this nature (with request for anonymity) would probably never have been investigated at all. Investigating allegations against job candidates is not a task for job interviewers; their task is to fill a position. Instead, if the candidate is getting interviewed for a highly responsible post by a board of directors, the board would simply slip this application to the bottom of the pile or discard it altogether. A responsible board would view the candidate as a potential liability. Nothing would have been made public; the candidate would eventually have received a "Thank you for your interest; we'll keep your application on file; we've filled the position" letter, end of.
While I do believe the complainant's account of sexual assault, and I also suspect she may have got used (and used badly, and probably by both sides), I have to wonder at the naivete of a reasonably intelligent citizen in mid-life who puts accusations of sexual assault in writing to a congress-monster with a request for and expectation of anonymity.
I can certainly understand the impulse to write such a letter; I'd have shared it. I might even have written the letter (but not sent it). In these times, though, with this Congress and this administration, what prevented the next, natural, inevitable thought-step -- that taking such an action would almost certainly go explosively public and would blow up in her face?
It's not that I've never acted rashly, with predictable consequences I neglected to consider; I certainly have, and so far have lived to regret them. Those actions were always driven by emotion, always undertaken without consulting wiser heads, or at least people taking my own interests into consideration.
Murkowski has already demonstrated her ability to win her seat even if she loses a primary from her right and has to run as a write-in candidate.
Yeah, but that was before Mazie Hirono read from his record on indigenous rights for Hawai'ians. If she votes for Kavanagh, she'll lose the support of Native Alaskans for sure.
And Native Alaskans were the key constituency of her 2010 write-in campaign. That was kind of my (understated) point. Murkowski does not necessarily need the Republican party apparatus, but she does need to stay on the good side of important local voter blocs.
The cloture move gives you an indication of McConnell's confidence, but I've seen this act before.
McConnell doesn't seem that sure to me. I think he's just come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh's support in the Senate is as good as its going to get and delaying will only make things harder. If, as anticipated, the final vote on Kavanaugh happens on Saturday the Republicans will be short at least one senator, as Steve Daines (R-MT) has said that he'll be at his daughter's wedding that day regardless of what business is before the Senate. That reduces the Republican majority to 50-49, meaning a single Republican defection (assuming no Democrats vote in his favor) could kill the Kavanaugh nomination.
This Kavanaugh. Classic abuser behaviour: he lashes out in uncontrolled anger, apologizes later for that anger, blame others for that anger, then promises that's not "who he is" and says he'll do better in the future.
For those who want to read it, Kavanaugh's non-pology is at the Wall Street Journal. The "tell" is this bit:
My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.
I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.
He wants the Senate to know he's sorry, but he only acted the way he did because they pushed him. To me that says "serial abuser" more than "judicial temperament". Kavanaugh even seems to tacitly agree.
I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad.
You're supposed to show the Senate Judiciary Committee that you're a suitable Supreme Court Justice. Your family relationships you can work out on your own time.
... I don't doubt that she is a traumatized woman, past present and future, but the total lack of corroboration combined with the way it was rolled out after the hearing was complete leaves me unimpressed. He may not be, but the guy should be confirmed, paid hysterics notwithstanding.
Two questions, romanlion:
Kavanagh has asserted that he did not watch Prof. Blasey's testimony before giving his response. Do you think that shows good judgment?
Kavanagh burst into tears, ranted and raged, reiterated his lifelong love for beer, and asked Senators about their drinking habits during the most important job interview of his life. Do you think that shows good judgment?
Actually, I changed my mind. Three questions:
What additional information would it take for you to believe Dr. Blaseys' account is true?
Why do those who talk to trumpy directly and those who talk about him, why do they show him respect? Why cannot a bunch of these politicians simply say "Donald what you just said is a lie?" "When you said <imitate him>" and get some laughs and applause. Lose the "Mr. trump" and Mr. president" nonsense and start talking to him like he talks about and to everyone else. Stuff like "MARA - Make America Rape Again"
Regarding job interviews. Perspective employees are all encouraged to censor and delete --certain posts on social media. Kavanaugh's yearbook entry tells a lot about his basic morals it seems to me.
Even when he became enraged--i.e. threw a tantrum--at the Judiciary Committee, he was showing his true self.
Regarding Trump: I note even Fox news has been calling him a liar more frequently.
Regarding the crowds he is attracting: On a Progressive Christians FB site, we have been having quite a discussion on The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. People have been objecting to the racist remarks in the book. But to listen to Trumps audience one realizes we have not progressed as far as we would have liked,
OK, let me put this to you: Why should he be confirmed?
AFZ
Well, the short answer is that I haven't seen any reason he shouldn't be. His qualifications aren't in question and the "allegations" against him lack credibility having been refuted by every person alleged to have been a witness or party to them.
The temperament complaints don't really do it for me either because assuming he is innocent (novel concept to be sure) I think he was well within an expected range of emotion during his response to the committee.
OK, let me put this to you: Why should he be confirmed?
AFZ
Well, the short answer is that I haven't seen any reason he shouldn't be. His qualifications aren't in question and the "allegations" against him lack credibility having been refuted by every person alleged to have been a witness or party to them.
Do you regard "I'm not aware of the incident, but I believe Dr. Blasey" as a refutation?
The temperament complaints don't really do it for me either because assuming he is innocent (novel concept to be sure) I think he was well within an expected range of emotion during his response to the committee.
How about his answering a question about agreeing to an FBI investigation with, "Senator, I went to Yale . . ." followed by a reiteration of items from his resume without ever responding to the simple yes-no question? This doesn't raise a red flag, or suggest a sense of entitlement?
I'm with you, but it looks like it doesn't matter. The GOP want the SCOTUS long term majority now and it looks as though a Democrat (Joe Manchin) will help them get it.
Kavanaugh looks odds on. I hope it creates an electoral backlash in the midterms. It deserves to. Politics look to have triumphed over quality assessment.
I may yet be proved wrong, but on current signs tomorrow will be a bad day for the credibility of the system.
Do you regard "I'm not aware of the incident, but I believe Dr. Blasey" as a refutation?
I regard it as idiotic.
"Yeah I know she said I was there, but I can't remember anything about it. I'm sure she's right though!"
How about his answering a question about agreeing to an FBI investigation with, "Senator, I went to Yale . . ." followed by a reiteration of items from his resume without ever responding to the simple yes-no question? This doesn't raise a red flag, or suggest a sense of entitlement?
I actually wasn't looking for anyone in that room without a sense of entitlement, since there were none.
He also ignored the extremely relevant "Do you believe Anita Hill?!"
Is this the new justification for opposing his nomination?
Comments
if you read the full article I referenced (which I reread this morning), towards the end of the article, it said that Trump tried to get his dad to sign a codicle to his will which would have given Donald full control of the estate when his dad died. Fred refused to sign it so Donald and siblings set up a shell company which would charge dear old daddy excessive expenses and slowly bled Fred's estate nearly dry. When Fred died they also did not execute the affairs of the estate properly.
I'm backing off a bit. I'm just feeling a bit upset over the whole K thing. There's just too much media on it. It's on my phone, its all over the comedy shows, its on our local news. I feel like its just too much to cope with given the nature of the allegations. I can't imagine how horrible it would be for people, having to relive their trauma. Can't stop myself reading and responding on this page though.
Neither of them necessarily, but I do think that the timing is critical to context. I also think that her credibility is suspect at best, and first blush of her testimony for me was that she's a bit of a nutter.
The results of the FBI investigation will be very interesting, although we may never know the details. Where's Julian Assange when we need him so badly?
lol
I hate that prick.
I used to think all embassies had a special room in the basement, akin to an oubliette. If only.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "timing". As the Merrick Garland (non-)hearings established, the Senate takes as much time as it decides to take. There's no deadline or ticking clock. Unless you mean the fact that Dr. Blasey could document having made these allegations privately back in 2012 and 2013, which does indicate some pretty impressive timing to anticipate Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court half a decade later.
There's the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty" we've been waiting for! We can always count on @romanlion for those evergreen classics. What's interesting is that Kavanaugh was an evasive ragemonster who told several obvious lies, but it's her credibility that's suspect. The folks at Vox compiled a useful chart comparing Dr. Blasey's cooperative responsiveness to Judge Kavanaugh's. Blue is questions answered directly, red represents questions evaded or filibustered. You can click on the chart at any point to see what the actual statements represented are, which makes it extra useful.
Not that interesting, reportedly.
I'm not sure I get the logic here. One could argue that the Bureau should concentrate only on the allegations made by Dr. Blasey. Alternatively one could make the case that all subsequent allegations should be investigated. I'm not sure I see a coherent logic that would argue one should investigate Dr. Blasey's claims and Deborah Ramirez's, but not Swetnick's or anyone else's. (This assumes that the Washington Post's reporting on this matter is accurate.) I'm also unsure of the logic behind interviewing Ramirez but not any of the (allegedly) twenty or so people she says were witnesses who could back up here story. Or rather, I can see the logic of it if the FBI investigation is supposed to serve as an exculpatory fig leaf for nervous senators, but not if it's supposed to be a serious investigation.
Her testimony was quite consistent with what one would expect from a sufferer from long term PTSD following a sexual attack. I find it hard to believe it was contrived by her for a political purpose, though I have some suspicion that she was being used. It's pretty hard to fabricate that mixture of vivid recall and confusion over incidental detail.
Obviously we heard more from Kavanaugh but I think he was much more evasive than she was. Particularly about both his youthful drunkenness and his overtly sexual comments in the year book. I believe her, rather than him, on the basis of what I heard them both say.
And his partisan self-defence made him look a pretty unsuitable SCOTUS justice.
It looks as though his fate will be determined by three GOP Senators, who all appear to be pretty appalled by Trump's mockery.
Some pollsters are reporting a Kavanaugh surge amongst GOP voters, which may bring more of them out to the polls in the midterms. Now that would be the crowning irony of this hearing. The mobilisation of the revisionist mysogynist tendency.
It's also highly unusual for someone fabricating a story to insert a superfluous witness (Mark Judge). Or to start the fabrication years before it's necessary.
With their Islamophobic, homophobic and white supremacist bedfellows. It's a substantial demographic, not to be ignored.
Agreed.
Is "non-gobsmacked" a word? Should be.
Apparently by design, as I noted earlier.
Yeah, adversity unites and on that basis nominating a drunken misogynist works better than a bland conservative.
> misogynist <
Wrong word. I choose "sexual assaulter".
Some suspicion? She was outed by her activist lawyer, who she was referred to by the ranking dim on the Judiciary committee. The same lawyer who apparently failed to inform her that Senators were willing to take her testimony at a time and place of her convenience to avoid the public spectacle. Couldn't have that...
What do we know about Ford's yearbook, if such nonsense is germane?
RBG isn't partisan? Obviously she is.
But he didn't really mock her did he? Basically he just re-stated answers given during her testimony. Mocking her looks more like this., and it's pretty spot on.
I don't doubt that she is a traumatized woman, past present and future, but the total lack of corroboration combined with the way it was rolled out after the hearing was complete leaves me unimpressed. He may not be, but the guy should be confirmed, paid hysterics notwithstanding.
Murkowski has already demonstrated her ability to win her seat even if she loses a primary from her right and has to run as a write-in candidate.
I think he'll get in and shouldn't. You doubt whether he'll get in and think he should. The vote will resolve that question.
Congress can investigate (just about) anything it wants to, so yes, the House Judiciary Committee could investigate Kavanaugh's past if it wanted to. They could theoretically investigate his likely perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee, though protocol dictates that's a matter for the Senate to handle itself. The only real restriction is that they (probably) couldn't subpœna Kavanaugh himself, since he'd be a member of a co-equal branch of government.
To remove a Supreme Court Justice requires impeachment by a majority of the House and conviction by two-thirds of the Senate.
Yeah, but that was before Mazie Hirono read from his record on indigenous rights for Hawai'ians. If she votes for Kavanagh, she'll lose the support of Native Alaskans for sure.
**(clip from the movie Heathers, 1989)
The cloture move gives you an indication of McConnell's confidence, but I've seen this act before.
GOP strategists love the idea!
Trump's rallies are usually by invitation only. He tailors his audience to his speeches.
Beware the tale of Newt, he who achieved a majority in Congress (fudged to avoid research) only to run so hard on the President that the neo-liberal bastard got re-elected.
It wasn't me
You are all that is wrong with America.
As has been noted, her testimony and demeanour were entirely in keeping with someone afflicted by PTSD by an assault and her telling of the story was deeply compelling. BTW, PTSD is much more common after sexual assault (especially when young) than after battlefield experience. Would what we saw in that hearing be enough to obtain a conviction? No. Nor should it be. There's a lot more work that would be needed. But that's not the point. The point is that this is relevant information that - if true - should disqualify someone from being a judge.
But what if he's innocent? He could be. I don't think so, but my opinion does not matter in the slightest. However, how anyone can watch his performance with the committee and think he's suitable to be a judge is mind-boggling and requires incredible cognitive dissonance. But we know that Ford's allegation is false because she conveniently reported it to her therapist only 5 years before Kavanagh's nomination, just in case.... The point is this: I don't have a problem with someone saying they believe Kavanagh is innocent, it's the reasoning that is so faulty. Unbelievably so.
And when Republicans can scream that it's the Dem's playing politics because of the timing, you know they've lost the plot. The only reason there is a time limit is because the GOP fear they might not get him through if they lose the Senate. I'd have some sympathy for this position if it wasn't for the hypocrisy of it all. We know that the GOP would never stall a Supreme Court nomination for political reasons, would they? Never in living memory....
So in order to hold this SC seat, they will risk confirming a sexual offender and tempermentally unsuitable man, in order to appease the prejudices that they have spent years stoking in their base.
Quite apart from the appalling state of US politics, the tainting of the SC is a huge risk to take.
In both the UK and the US, we have the same problem; people who put power and party so far ahead of country...
AFZ
AFZ
AFZ
As an active thread participant, I would not normally respond, but this is clear cut. As your apology suggests, you did fail. That quote above from your post is attacking the person (not the issue) and is a Commandment 3 offence. Take it to Hell if you like, but drop it here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
It was in rereading that I spotted my mistake. Let me rephrase; that attitude, here expressed by @romanlion is to my mind really damaging.
YMMV but my apologies for making it personal, you're probably a great guy who I would like IRL...
AFZ
If that truly is the case she's in better shape than I realized.
Thanks for the apology but no offense taken.
While I do believe the complainant's account of sexual assault, and I also suspect she may have got used (and used badly, and probably by both sides), I have to wonder at the naivete of a reasonably intelligent citizen in mid-life who puts accusations of sexual assault in writing to a congress-monster with a request for and expectation of anonymity.
I can certainly understand the impulse to write such a letter; I'd have shared it. I might even have written the letter (but not sent it). In these times, though, with this Congress and this administration, what prevented the next, natural, inevitable thought-step -- that taking such an action would almost certainly go explosively public and would blow up in her face?
It's not that I've never acted rashly, with predictable consequences I neglected to consider; I certainly have, and so far have lived to regret them. Those actions were always driven by emotion, always undertaken without consulting wiser heads, or at least people taking my own interests into consideration.
OK, let me put this to you: Why should he be confirmed?
AFZ
And Native Alaskans were the key constituency of her 2010 write-in campaign. That was kind of my (understated) point. Murkowski does not necessarily need the Republican party apparatus, but she does need to stay on the good side of important local voter blocs.
McConnell doesn't seem that sure to me. I think he's just come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh's support in the Senate is as good as its going to get and delaying will only make things harder. If, as anticipated, the final vote on Kavanaugh happens on Saturday the Republicans will be short at least one senator, as Steve Daines (R-MT) has said that he'll be at his daughter's wedding that day regardless of what business is before the Senate. That reduces the Republican majority to 50-49, meaning a single Republican defection (assuming no Democrats vote in his favor) could kill the Kavanaugh nomination.
For those who want to read it, Kavanaugh's non-pology is at the Wall Street Journal. The "tell" is this bit:
He wants the Senate to know he's sorry, but he only acted the way he did because they pushed him. To me that says "serial abuser" more than "judicial temperament". Kavanaugh even seems to tacitly agree.
You're supposed to show the Senate Judiciary Committee that you're a suitable Supreme Court Justice. Your family relationships you can work out on your own time.
Two questions, romanlion:
Kavanagh has asserted that he did not watch Prof. Blasey's testimony before giving his response. Do you think that shows good judgment?
Kavanagh burst into tears, ranted and raged, reiterated his lifelong love for beer, and asked Senators about their drinking habits during the most important job interview of his life. Do you think that shows good judgment?
Actually, I changed my mind. Three questions:
What additional information would it take for you to believe Dr. Blaseys' account is true?
Even when he became enraged--i.e. threw a tantrum--at the Judiciary Committee, he was showing his true self.
Regarding Trump: I note even Fox news has been calling him a liar more frequently.
Regarding the crowds he is attracting: On a Progressive Christians FB site, we have been having quite a discussion on The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. People have been objecting to the racist remarks in the book. But to listen to Trumps audience one realizes we have not progressed as far as we would have liked,
Well, the short answer is that I haven't seen any reason he shouldn't be. His qualifications aren't in question and the "allegations" against him lack credibility having been refuted by every person alleged to have been a witness or party to them.
The temperament complaints don't really do it for me either because assuming he is innocent (novel concept to be sure) I think he was well within an expected range of emotion during his response to the committee.
Do you regard "I'm not aware of the incident, but I believe Dr. Blasey" as a refutation?
How about his answering a question about agreeing to an FBI investigation with, "Senator, I went to Yale . . ." followed by a reiteration of items from his resume without ever responding to the simple yes-no question? This doesn't raise a red flag, or suggest a sense of entitlement?
I'm with you, but it looks like it doesn't matter. The GOP want the SCOTUS long term majority now and it looks as though a Democrat (Joe Manchin) will help them get it.
Kavanaugh looks odds on. I hope it creates an electoral backlash in the midterms. It deserves to. Politics look to have triumphed over quality assessment.
I may yet be proved wrong, but on current signs tomorrow will be a bad day for the credibility of the system.
I regard it as idiotic.
"Yeah I know she said I was there, but I can't remember anything about it. I'm sure she's right though!"
I actually wasn't looking for anyone in that room without a sense of entitlement, since there were none.
He also ignored the extremely relevant "Do you believe Anita Hill?!"
Is this the new justification for opposing his nomination?