Believe Accusers!

[Darth Meteos]

i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're making them part of your most powerful legal body

even in the case of the ford woman we have people coming out of the woodwork saying that it was "... consistent with stories we heard and lived..."
she was talking about it it 2012, much earlier than kavanaugh was even conceptually a supreme court nominee
she's even done a fuckin' polygraph
but it's not like it matters even if she is telling the truth, because a majority of republicans say he should be confirmed even if he did it
this moral grandstanding is pointless, the constituents of the guys who want him in don't care if he's guilty

if there's a saving grace for you, this is just another footnote in a long four years of shit the rest of the world is laughing at you for, it probably won't register in the long run against everything else

 

[Xzi]

Some victims of sexual assault are unfairly accused of asking for it. Some men are unfairly accused of sexual assault. It's a cycle and not nearly as simple as some people like to make it out.

True, but as has been pointed out in this thread, the frequency of false accusations is about 2-8%.

Republicans and Democrats are, and always have been, two sides of the same coin.

This talking point gives Republicans power. Obama's presidency and his nominees were nowhere near this level of shitshow.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States , https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...nd-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees

 

[kuwanger]

Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage? Or that when asked questions about his drinking, he repeatedly was combative going as far as when asked if he'd ever been black out drunk or had any partial memory loss released to drink saying back rather snappishly, "No, have you?"

Really, everything about that exchange just makes me think that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic in extreme denial about both his past and possible his current drinking habits. The fact that he admits to in high school drinking, being valedictorian, and on the varsity team makes it clear to me he was and probably still is very good at covering up his drinking habits. Regardless of whether what he stated is outright perjury, there is something deeply disturbing in his behavior.

But this "he's so whiny and snowflakish" thing is absurd. His professional and personal life is crumbling around him. Imagine waking up one morning. You've worked hard for this moment and are about to become a Supreme Court judge. And then you receive a phone call.

Apparently his personal relationships are suffering, etc. Listen man, you really don't get to judge him in that manner until you've actually gone through what the guy is going through.

Literally every statement he made to the press could be a lie and there's absolutely zero legal or other jeopardy in what he says. For someone who worked so hard to become a Supreme Court judge to think be unable to hold it together at his confirmation hearing? I can somewhat get it. I'd even understand it if it was about all the accusations made against him. But, he snapped at people merely asking legitimate (but probing) questions about his drinking habits. He was vague about how much he drank. He lied about the legality of his drinking.

If this is where all the effort in his life was leading to, he honestly failed pretty horribly: not in being emotional but being clearly unstable and lying about the wrong things.

PS - It's quite possible he wasn't lying but just didn't know the drinking age changed. It's hard to believe, though, given he drank in college as well. In '83 while 18 he went to Yale, the drinking age was 20. And in '85 when he was 20, the drinking age was raised to 21 (though he would have been grandfathered in). This push by MADD to enforce a national drinking age of 21 was heavily reported at the time, along with the many States who had lower drinking ages who were reluctant to change their laws.

PPS - And as far as I know, the major reason for the push back against MADD was the "if we can be called on to fight, why can't we drink" of the Vietnam War era. That and the usual Federal government bullying States to act in a certain way using Federal funds.

 

[Xzi]

i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself

Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage? Or that when asked questions about his drinking, he repeatedly was combative going as far as when asked if he'd ever been black out drunk or had any partial memory loss released to drink saying back rather snappishly, "No, have you?"

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with for why Republicans want to push Kavanaugh's confirmation through right now is that they believe Mueller is going to drop the big hammer on Donnie soon, and odds are a lot of them are implicated. They need his vote against presidential indictments to keep the first domino from falling and protect themselves. After all, even if Democrats win the senate or congress in the mid-terms, Republicans still have until January or February to get another justice confirmed. So there really shouldn't be any rush to get Kavanaugh in particular through.

 

[kingfrost]

Seems there might be a few issues for Dr. Ford to resolve about her testimony. The double-door renovation project on her house took place in 2008, not 2012 as she testified, and was done to allow a marriage counselor who had previously resided in the home to continue keeping her practice there. Later, it provided a separate apartment space for those Google interns. But the construction was done years before she allegedly told her husband they needed two front doors because Kavanaugh's a home-invading rape ninja.

Also, there's this tonight -- a longtime boyfriend of Ford's has provided Senate Judiciary a sworn statement that he witnessed Ford once coaching someone on how to take a polygraph (she explicitly denied ever doing so during her testimony), that she has no fear of flying whatsoever, never mentioned a traumatic event in high school, never mentioned the name Brett Kavanaugh, and ran up charges on his credit card after he had already broken up with her because she fucked around on him lol.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02...e-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs

The name is redacted here, but Senate Judiciary knows his identity.

So just to clarify, it's not ok to believe Kavanaugh's roommate because they didn't like each other but completely OK to believe a woman's ex boyfriend because? If anything, that letter proves what I've been saying which is that either side will sacrifice credibility for political expediency.

You know how who the good Judge nearly quoted in the Judiciary hearing? Hilary Clinton. No joke, his entire opening was just like her "there is massive right conspiracy to hurt my husband" impeachment testimony. Guess what? Bill Clinton sexually assaulted someone, even many woman.

Do you know why Monica Lewinsky was brought forward to testify? Political expediency. She was advised to save a dress with semen on it as proof but political allies of the right. I'm sure this will be misrepresented as some sort of conspiracy for the Clinton's to have revenge on him or some nonsense like that, but many people didn't believe Clinton was capable of that and still don't.

The Democrats questioned the validity of the women's claims too. Any good Republican should have this story memorized because it's a great talking point in any conversation about sexual assault that allows them, in their mind, to discount the other side.

What I'm saying is, the Republicans went all out and it turned out that Bill Clinton had actually possibly sexually assaulted someone. The Republicans did this with no thought toward his daughter or the effect it would have on government.

As such, seeing them make the same claims the Democrats made then, and seeing the same ridiculous defense being used just shows that nothing has changed since then.

They even questioned if Bill Clinton was hid daughters father and accused Hilary of killing her real father Vince Foster. Of course, no one believes that now right?

Sadly haven't read through all the posts, but is it not enough that Kavanaugh lied about the legal age to drink where he lived and hence was drinking underage? Or that when asked questions about his drinking, he repeatedly was combative going as far as when asked if he'd ever been black out drunk or had any partial memory loss released to drink saying back rather snappishly, "No, have you?"

Really, everything about that exchange just makes me think that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic in extreme denial about both his past and possible his current drinking habits. The fact that he admits to in high school drinking, being valedictorian, and on the varsity team makes it clear to me he was and probably still is very good at covering up his drinking habits. Regardless of whether what he stated is outright perjury, there is something deeply disturbing in his behavior.



Literally every statement he made to the press could be a lie and there's absolutely zero legal or other jeopardy in what he says. For someone who worked so hard to become a Supreme Court judge to think be unable to hold it together at his confirmation hearing? I can somewhat get it. I'd even understand it if it was about all the accusations made against him. But, he snapped at people merely asking legitimate (but probing) questions about his drinking habits. He was vague about how much he drank. He lied about the legality of his drinking.

If this is where all the effort in his life was leading to, he honestly failed pretty horribly: not in being emotional but being clearly unstable and lying about the wrong things.

PS - It's quite possible he wasn't lying but just didn't know the drinking age changed. It's hard to believe, though, given he drank in college as well. In '83 while 18 he went to Yale, the drinking age was 20. And in '85 when he was 20, the drinking age was raised to 21 (though he would have been grandfathered in). This push by MADD to enforce a national drinking age of 21 was heavily reported at the time, along with the many States who had lower drinking ages who were reluctant to change their laws.

It's quite simple. His side, like the Democrats with Bill Clinton as I mentioned early, do not care if he did it or not. They care that he is conservative and most of all that he is extremely prolife, to the point of calling birth control a form of abortion.

Republicans would be quick to say to the truth doesn't matter in our government anymore, Democrats would say that they are trying to find the truth, and I would say the truth has never mattered in American politics. Only the spin.

False accusations are part and parcel of our government. False accusation were made about WMDs so we went to war. False accusations about Marijuana keeps it from the hands of people it could help medicinally. It's hilarious that most of my county is only upset about false accusations when it benefits or hurts "their guy".

 

[Tigran]

i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're making them part of your most powerful legal body

even in the case of the ford woman we have people coming out of the woodwork saying that it was "... consistent with stories we heard and lived..."
she was talking about it it 2012, much earlier than kavanaugh was even conceptually a supreme court nominee
she's even done a fuckin' polygraph
but it's not like it matters even if she is telling the truth, because a majority of republicans say he should be confirmed even if he did it
this moral grandstanding is pointless, the constituents of the guys who want him in don't care if he's guilty

if there's a saving grace for you, this is just another footnote in a long four years of shit the rest of the world is laughing at you for, it probably won't register in the long run against everything else

Because to most people.. The GOP and Republicans are "Good christians!" Which to most of the brainwashed in the country literally means that they are above reproach and can't do any wrong.. Because a "Good Christian!" would never do anything wrong.. And if "Good Christians!" arn't in power... that means that Gays, Blacks, Mexicans,.... AND ATHETISTS! will all come out of the wood work and break down the "Moral fibers!" of america with stuff like that.


These are the people who have an add on youtube saying the left want a government that "Controls everything, even individuality." Even though it's literally the GOP and Republican's that are making laws on which bathroom a trans-gendered person can use, supposedly as way to avoid sexual assult........ x.x;

Most of these people have been taught for -years- by the GOP to "FEAR! FEAR FEAR!" And "Don't ask questions... Ever!" so now that things are this bad, the GOP and most republican voters are digging their heals in even further because they have no idea what else to do.

 

[kuwanger]

The only reasonable explanation I can come up with for why Republicans want to push Kavanaugh's confirmation through right now is ...

I disagree. I think the Republicans are well aware that if they lose a lot of seats, then any SCJ they push through will look illegitimate which by extension means they are a prime target for being replaced in the following election. The second part is that given it took from July to now to get this far with Kavanaugh, they're likely afraid that Democrats could effectively stall any other nomination until they possibly are in power--there's no guarantee of it, but power swapping has happened a lot lately. The third part is, they really just don't care. A lot of Republicans have walked in strong lockstep with an "ends justify the means"* approach for such a long time, I think their only real concern is achieving the goal of getting a conservative judge on the SC. Anyone who is sufficiently vetted in that regard is good enough for them.

* Look no further than their whole "repeal Obamacare". I'm still waiting for them to "repeal [and replace] (nifty add-on)", given they had 7+ years to come up with something better.

Edit:

It's hilarious that most of my county is only upset about false accusations when it benefits or hurts "their guy".

It's funny you bring that up because I was going to note, everything about this is just like the whole impeachment of Clinton: to lie about an extraneous thing of a personal matter that may or may not effect the job as a means of saving oneself embarrassment and a possible opening of further political attack.

 

[Tigran]

Here is a funny thing though.. A Supreme Court Justice -can- be impeached.

 

[Xzi]

I disagree. I think the Republicans are well aware that if they lose a lot of seats, then any SCJ they push through will look illegitimate which by extension means they are a prime target for being replaced in the following election.

I agree with most of what you said, but I still think they're willing to lose mid-terms to get the 5-4 vote on the bench for a lifetime. It takes 2/3rds of the senate to impeach a SCOTUS judge and I don't see that many Republicans going along with it basically ever, even if it's confirmed that Kavanaugh is a rapist.

 

[Tigran]

I agree with most of what you said, but I still think they're willing to lose mid-terms to get the 5-4 vote on the bench for a lifetime. It takes 2/3rds of the senate to impeach a SCOTUS judge and I don't see that many Republicans going along with it basically ever, even if it's confirmed that Kavanaugh is a rapist.

Then we just need someone angry enough to Snipe Kavanaugh.. Problem solved.

 

[kuwanger]

Here is a funny thing though.. A Supreme Court Justice -can- be impeached.

Ah yes, Samuel Chase. "He was impeached on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions, but was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office." and "In 1762, Chase was expelled from the Forensic Club, an Annapolis debating society, for "extremely irregular and indecent" behavior." Oh, and "Born April 17, 1741 Somerset County, Maryland, British America". You go, Maryland.

PS -- "Funny" in context now stuff in relationship to Kavanaugh's drinking: '"The narrative shows how pathetic Clinton is," Kavanaugh argued, "that he needs therapy, not removal. It's a sad story. Our job is not to get Clinton out. It is just to give information."'

 

[Xzi]

Then we just need someone angry enough to Snipe Kavanaugh.. Problem solved.

I wouldn't advocate for violence, but at that point we'd need some massive amounts of civil disobedience to make government remember who they work for.

 

[Tigran]

I wouldn't advocate for violence, but at that point we'd need some massive amounts of civil disobedience to make government remember who they work for.

Who's talking violence? I was talking about on ebay... The man would then probably break down and cry in his home for several weeks and not make it to his confirmation.

 

[Joe88]

i have a better question: why is he allowed to be on your supreme court if he perjured himself
loads of the shit in his yearbook has been sourced as being not what he said, like that devil's triangle thing
he was under oath and he lied, isn't that a strike one, you're out kinda deal when you're making them part of your most powerful legal body

even in the case of the ford woman we have people coming out of the woodwork saying that it was "... consistent with stories we heard and lived..."
she was talking about it it 2012, much earlier than kavanaugh was even conceptually a supreme court nominee
she's even done a fuckin' polygraph
but it's not like it matters even if she is telling the truth, because a majority of republicans say he should be confirmed even if he did it
this moral grandstanding is pointless, the constituents of the guys who want him in don't care if he's guilty

if there's a saving grace for you, this is just another footnote in a long four years of shit the rest of the world is laughing at you for, it probably won't register in the long run against everything else

It's because they cannot prove it, a bunch of 60-80 year olds trying to use "urban dictionary" as a source isn't valid.

Also polygraphs arn't admissible as any type of evidence because they can be easily tricked, especially since it was revealed she took it on the day of her grandmother's funeral in a hotel in Balitmore. You know because stress levels mean nothing when taking one...

The general problem is she had zero evidence to show, not that I was expecting much evidence for a 35 year old attempted rape allegation. The 3 people who she named will not corroborate her story, she cannot remember anything other than kavanaugh trying to rape her. You just create a fallacy, you can't prove it happened but at the same time you can't prove it didn't happen.

 

[kuwanger]

It's because they cannot prove it,

Which goes to show, people in the US are perfectly okay with being a lying illegally alcoholic 18 year old but have serious issues with a lying 18 year old engaging in legal, but "morally reprehensible", sex games.

 

[gamesquest1]

maybe there should be an "opt-in" option for people to prove how much they really want a "guilty until proven innocent" system, anyone who thinks that kind of system wouldn't lead to complete chaos is an idiot, "oh my ex boyfriend didn't give me the cat we both owned together.....RAPEEE!!!!", "oh that girl in starbucks wouldn't give me her number......RAPPPPEEEEE!"

it would be absolute chaos with the law being used as a tool to harass and bully others into bending to your will and all you would need to do to get someone sent to prison is to get yourself alone in a room with someone for 5 minutes

 

[Tigran]

maybe there should be an "opt-in" option for people to prove how much they really want a "guilty until proven innocent"

That's what our system already is, otherwise why do we have jails full of people who haven't been to trial yet?

 

[gamesquest1]

That's what our system already is, otherwise why do we have jails full of people who haven't been to trial yet?

you can be held if there is sufficient cause to believe you have done something or the crime is so serious you would be deemed a risk to others to be out while they investigate, but your not going to be sentenced and have a criminal record if there isn't enough evidence to even suggest you committed the crime, and generally you only get held upto about 48 hours or so unless there is substantial evidence to the point you can be charged

but ofc that's from a uk perspective, I don't think there would be too much of a difference in how things are handled in the US, although I could be wrong I know states have different laws etc

 

[kuwanger]

but your not going to be sentenced and have a criminal record if there isn't enough evidence to even suggest you committed the crime ... but ofc that's from a uk perspective, I don't think there would be too much of a difference in how things are handled in the US, although I could be wrong I know states have different laws etc

'According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."' -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

I presume this is what's being referred to. People suspected of a crime are told they could spend n many years in jail if convicted or can plea to n/10 years.

 

[gamesquest1]

'According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."' -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plea_bargain

I presume this is what's being referred to. People suspected of a crime are told they could spend n many years in jail if convicted or can plea to n/10 years.

yeah, ok that is a pretty fucked up system imho, you shouldn't be threatened to admitting to a crime, that said if there was zero or very little substantial evidence against you your lawyer should tell you to go to trial and win, personally I feel the legal system still needs work to become more just but guilty until proven innocent is a huge leap in the wrong direction

 

[Tigran]

yeah, ok that is a pretty fucked up system imho, you shouldn't be threatened to admitting to a crime, that said if there was zero evidence against you your lawyer should tell you to go to trial and win, personally I feel the legal system still needs work to become more just but guilty until proven innocent is a huge leap in the wrong direction

We still have people sentanced just for being black, or sentanced to death because they are gay.