SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[El_Machinae]

Also, it seems to me that the bulk of the accusations against Kavanaugh have shifted from the sexual assault incident to his testimony.

Not so sure I would say shifted as added to. A credible sexual assault as a teenager might be a good reason to not let him sit on the bench, especially if he has skated through life free of the consequences of his action until now. In comparison, the potential perjury is a directly impeachable offense. Some people just didn't like his demeanor. In the circles I know of that care about sexual assault, they continue to care about this aspect the most.

some republicans are saying that this is a delay tactic. They're saying that Feinstein sat on these allegations by Ford for weeks, before bringing this up before the nomination. Is there any truth to this?

I wrestled with this, because it smells like dirty politics. There are factors that make finestein being look like the bad guy. Or, at least someone willing to play dirty pool.

By all indications, Ford released a confidential note. I don't see how Feinstein could have forwarded this information to the panel without breaching Ford's confidence. That said, it is obvious that Ford's note was leaked to the Press and forced her into the public stage.

In retrospect, it looks like four dimensional chess. I'm not so sure it was, but I actually claim to be agnostic on this point. It feels more like Feinstein sat on the Note, not knowing what to do with it, because there was not much that could be done with it ethically. The fact that the note was issued in confidence is so much of a binding issue.

And then, after the indecision, they broke confidence. At least that's my take. They also might have been working on Ford the entire time, trying to talk her into being willing to come to the public.

Rowan's original recording says that the Democrats felt that they had to sit on the Note, because the note requested confidence. And it also looks like it was intentionally leaked. Feinstein's people do not look good in the story. But I don't know if it was four dimensional chess

 

[metalhead]

Of what relevance is that to the matter at hand though? Does it make the allegations any less credible, or Kavanaugh's response to them any less problematic, if they were used improperly?

That just feels like a red herring, being used in bad faith to distract from the real issue here, which is that practically nobody in America except GOP Senators, the Trump White House, and their sycophants and blind partisans thinks Kavanaugh should sit on the Supreme Court.

If you want to question Dianne Feinstein's ethics, launch an ethics probe. But for these people to cry over Democrats maybe playing politics with a SCOTUS nomination is nothing less than hypocritical gaslighting.

 

[Lexicus]

That just feels like a red herring, being used in bad faith to distract from the real issue here, which is that practically nobody in America except GOP Senators, the Trump White House, and their sycophants and blind partisans thinks Kavanaugh should sit on the Supreme Court.

Well, Actually, 84% of Republicans and 59% of white men believe he should be confirmed.

 

[metalhead]

I stand by my statement.

 

[Synobun]

Orin Hatch told female protestors to grow up before he'd talk to them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...anding-speak-with-him/?utm_term=.efeaba3f72b7

They grew up long before they should have because of men like Orin Hatch.

 

[Lexicus]

I stand by my statement.

If their sycophants and blind partisans comprise such a broad swath of the population, we've really got a problem on our hands.

 

[Hehehe]

What do you guys make of this? More or less fresh from the republican echo chamber, apparently Ford's ex-boyfriend submitted a sworn statement, according to which Ford lied about couching anyone for a lie detector, and that she also lied about having a fear of flying?

Surely you see the problem here. "I agree to what the committee recommends," when the committee is transparently working as hard as they can to get you confirmed, is not seeking a full and impartial investigation. It's trusting your powerful friends to protect you.

An FBI investigation has SO much more power than a committee hearing. You can't dodge investigators' questions. You WILL get brought up on charges if your answers are misleading. And investigators are duty bound to follow up on leads and gather evidence.

Senate hearings are political theater, and no reasonable person would confuse a Senate hearing with this high of a profile as an honest attempt to gather all relevant facts. That's plainly obvious from the fact that the hearing didn't even include all of the people who were allegedly in the room a the time of the attack. How can you possibly confuse a hearing that doesn't even include all of the eyewitnesses with an honest attempt to gather facts?

Does this refer to Mark Judge? Didn't he issue a sworn statement saying that he has no idea what she's talking about?

You can see how wrong this is from the simple fact that the FBI was not directed to actually carry out an investigation. They followed no leads. They ignored all tips. They didn't even interview the subject or his accuser! Sure, he agreed to let the committee protect him, and that's exactly what he did. An innocent man would not need to rely on his friends' protection.

Maybe FBI should conduct a full investigation after Kavanaugh has been confirmed. What about this new FBI report? As far as I know, according to the White House, the report failed to corroborate any of the accusations against Kavanaugh?

I wrestled with this, because it smells like dirty politics. There are factors that make finestein being look like the bad guy. Or, at least someone willing to play dirty pool.

By all indications, Ford released a confidential note. I don't see how Feinstein could have forwarded this information to the panel without breaching Ford's confidence. That said, it is obvious that Ford's note was leaked to the Press and forced her into the public stage.

In retrospect, it looks like four dimensional chess. I'm not so sure it was, but I actually claim to be agnostic on this point. It feels more like Feinstein sat on the Note, not knowing what to do with it, because there was not much that could be done with it ethically. The fact that the note was issued in confidence is so much of a binding issue.

And then, after the indecision, they broke confidence. At least that's my take. They also might have been working on Ford the entire time, trying to talk her into being willing to come to the public.

Rowan's original recording says that the Democrats felt that they had to sit on the Note, because the note requested confidence. And it also looks like it was intentionally leaked. Feinstein's people do not look good in the story. But I don't know if it was four dimensional chess

So, it looks like we have an accusation against Feinstein that can be neither confirmed nor denied? Would it be fair to say that we do not have enough evidence to accuse Feinstein of anything?

Of what relevance is that to the matter at hand though? Does it make the allegations any less credible, or Kavanaugh's response to them any less problematic, if they were used improperly?

That just feels like a red herring, being used in bad faith to distract from the real issue here, which is that practically nobody in America except GOP Senators, the Trump White House, and their sycophants and blind partisans thinks Kavanaugh should sit on the Supreme Court.

If you want to question Dianne Feinstein's ethics, launch an ethics probe. But for these people to cry over Democrats maybe playing politics with a SCOTUS nomination is nothing less than hypocritical gaslighting.

It makes it look as though this was being used for political ends. I does not, in and of itself, confirm or deny any of the accusations against Kavanaugh, it simply makes it look like Feinstein may or may not be using a woman's tragedy to further her own agenda.

 

[metalhead]

Yes indeed. I'm horrified that anyone could watch Kavanaugh's performance and not conclude that we should set higher standards than him for who sits on the Supreme Court. It's truly sad that our institutions command so little respect that people are disinterested in even the pretense that they have value and are worth protecting.

 

[El_Machinae]

We don't have testimony against Feinstein. That is very much not the same thing as an accusation. We don't have evidence that the accuser knows more than we do. With Ford and Kavanaugh, that's not true.

There's an (alleged) affidavit against Ford about the lie detector. I'm also seeing many people claim that Devil's Triangle really was a game.

The best evidence for sexual assault against Kavanaugh is the claim from the husband that Ford has named him previously. The best evidence for perjury is probably testimony about his drinking

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The Kavanaugh hearings have also helped closed the enthusiasm gap between Republican and Dem voters for November. As Adam Serwer says, the cruelty, the 'owning the libs', the tarnishing women are the points and bedrock. The tax cuts are just a way to enrich themselves along the way.

 

[Hrothbern]

Pfffft! Accountability is for Peasants!!

It's about time for the International Peasants movement.
Get out from your lazy spectator chairs.... forwards.... and grab them by the wallet

Spoiler some pamphets could be felt as inappropiate :

 

[metalhead]

Does this refer to Mark Judge? Didn't he issue a sworn statement saying that he has no idea what she's talking about?

Yes. And that is in no way the equivalent of testimony under oath. His statement cannot be cross-examined. It is simply not sufficient if the goal is to determine the facts. Neither are the interviews of Ford and Kavanaugh, either. You don't get facts by chopping questioning up into 5 minute intervals. The prosecutor hired to do the questioning basically said as much.

Maybe FBI should conduct a full investigation after Kavanaugh has been confirmed. What about this new FBI report? As far as I know, according to the White House, the report failed to corroborate any of the accusations against Kavanaugh?

You mean the FBI report which was put together without allowing leads to be followed or tips to be accepted? The FBI report that the public is not allowed to see and that Senators are forbidden to describe on penalty of expulsion from the Senate, but of course the White House is free to characterize however it wants? That FBI report?

It's garbage. It's no more an honest attempt to gather facts than the hearing was. You can't spin it as if it was. And what the hell is the purpose of doing an investigation after it's too late to act on the information? What good would that do?

 

[Hehehe]

Yes. And that is in no way the equivalent of testimony under oath. His statement cannot be cross-examined. It is simply not sufficient if the goal is to determine the facts. Neither are the interviews of Ford and Kavanaugh, either. You don't get facts by chopping questioning up into 5 minute intervals. The prosecutor hired to do the questioning basically said as much.

It seems to me that the hearings of Kavanaugh and Ford are enough. It's a case of he said she said. What more can you do, other than examine the evidence (evidence being he said she said)? And as for Mark Judge, what do you think a cross-examination would reveal?

You mean the FBI report which was put together without allowing leads to be followed or tips to be accepted? The FBI report that the public is not allowed to see and that Senators are forbidden to describe on penalty of expulsion from the Senate, but of course the White House is free to characterize however it wants? That FBI report?

It's garbage. It's no more an honest attempt to gather facts than the hearing was. You can't spin it as if it was. And what the hell is the purpose of doing an investigation after it's too late to act on the information? What good would that do?

I wouldn't mind a proper examination, but ultimately, I'm not sure what they can do

 

[Silurian]

So now that he has been approved, what next

 

[BenitoChavez]

Of what relevance is that to the matter at hand though? Does it make the allegations any less credible, or Kavanaugh's response to them any less problematic, if they were used improperly?

The only relevance they have to each other is that they are both a part of the same causal chain that brought this thing to where it is today. Otherwise they are separate issues. Leaking Ford's confidential letter doesn't excuse the allegations and the leak doesn't excuse the Kavanaugh's response.

But the leak still matters because it is such a callous, hypocritical way to treat a potential abuse victim. Making Ford the target of political attacks, public humiliation, and death threats all for a public spectacle for a political purpose is so self-serving and uncaring that it is revolting.

 

[Hrothbern]

It seems to me that the hearings of Kavanaugh and Ford are enough. It's a case of he said she said. What more can you do, other than examine the evidence (evidence being he said she said)? And as for Mark Judge, what do you think a cross-examination would reveal?

I wouldn't mind a proper examination, but ultimately, I'm not sure what they can do

The way Kavanaugh behaved during the hearing.... the body language....
Is that the kind of character profile you seek for the Supreme Court of your country ???

really... he totally lacks the kind of dignity that goes with that function.
For sure, I guess, there were in the past judges that did horrible things and were still able to keep up appearances and their public facade of dignity to the "public".

Dignity as such is not enough.
But no dignity is not good enough for such a function.

 

[Lexicus]

So now that he has been approved, what next

He hasn't, not yet anyway.

 

[Hehehe]

The way Kavanaugh behaved during the hearing.... the body language....
Is that the kind of character profile you seek for the Supreme Court of your country ???

really... he totally lacks the kind of dignity that goes with that function.
For sure, I guess, there were in the past judges that did horrible things and were still able to keep up appearances and their public facade of dignity to the "public".

Dignity as such is not enough.
But no dignity is not good enough for such a function.

I still haven't watched the hearing, but the stuff about how Kavanaugh behaved seems highly subjective. There is no truth value there that can be reached, only an infinite yuh-huh nuh-huh argument. Personally, I'm not sure what difference it'll make, my prediction is that republicans will all say it was fine and democrats will all say that it was unfit for a supreme court justice.

 

[Verbose]

Dignity as such is not enough.
But no dignity is not good enough for such a function.

What's the premium on dignity in Trump's USA?

 

[metalhead]

It seems to me that the hearings of Kavanaugh and Ford are enough. It's a case of he said she said. What more can you do, other than examine the evidence (evidence being he said she said)? And as for Mark Judge, what do you think a cross-examination would reveal?

There is a lot more you can do. For starters, you can interview Kavanaugh's friends to try to establish a pattern of behavior where he would get drunk and act inappropriately towards women. As far as Mark Judge is concerned, if a cross examination reveals that he merely does not remember such an event and not that he is 100% certain it never happened, that would be hugely significant. You get much more useful information from a witness in live testimony than in a short 3 paragraph statement.

You can interview other classmates for the same reason. You can look into the specific calendar entry for July 1, 1982 which shows Kavanaugh attending a small gathering to drink beer with 2 other people named by Dr. Ford as present at the gathering. You could determine if the location and attendees of that gathering support Dr. Ford's version of events.

Then, you could investigate the other allegations from Debbie Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, both of which also have corroborating witnesses. Same thing - talk to potential eyewitnesses, try to establish patterns of behavior, etc.

Old crimes are investigated regularly by authorities. They could investigate this properly if they wanted to. And Senators are simply not an adequate substitute for seasoned investigators when it comes to asking questions and gathering facts and evidence.

I wouldn't mind a proper examination, but ultimately, I'm not sure what they can do

Do a proper investigation? There is nothing stopping them from investigating these claims thoroughly, other than they don't want to do it.