Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 09:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other allegations?  If you're referring to the New Yorker allegations, those have been roundly excoriated and don't appear to be worthy of serious consideration.  This is a rather widely held opinion.  Yes, some senators have said that the, he said she said, of an event thirty-five years old will not change their mind.  I can see their reasoning for saying so even if I don't agree with it.  

Have they? I'm not being snarky, but I haven't seen that. I did see his roommate say he would get belligerently drunk and that the accuser was a trustworthy person. There's apparently a 3rd accuser set to speak up (but who knows). 

Quote:A reasonable point.  I would counter by saying that a delay of three days rather pales in the face of a delay of two months.  Point being, if the Dems wanted these allegations to be investigated at length they should have come forward with them when they received them, months ago.  As they did not it appears a thorough investigation is not really their objective.

I know what's "right" and "decency" go out the window in DC, so I cannot defend Feinstein sitting on this rather than pushing for a real investigation as soon as she found out, but should due diligence not be done just because she sucks?

If he's innocent, it'll remove a blemish.

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure, what time limit would you put on it? 

And it's not for "the rest of his life". If the Dems want to push for an investigation and there is proof of his guilt he can be impeached. Your wording just makes it sound much more dramatic. 

I responded to SSF that the weekend seems appropriate, so a Monday vote. 

Would "the rest of his life or until he chooses to retire" be better?

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 09:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I responded to SSF that the weekend seems appropriate, so a Monday vote. 

Would "the rest of his life or until he chooses to retire" be better?

Sure Monday is fair; that's much different than Friday.

Nope,reading what I wrote would be better. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2018, 09:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Have they? I'm not being snarky, but I haven't seen that. I did see his roommate say he would get belligerently drunk and that the accuser was a trustworthy person. There's apparently a 3rd accuser set to speak up (but who knows).

Every other news organization refused to print the story because it could not be corroborated.  The New Yorker admits in the article itself the story cannot be corroborated.  (Please note GMDino, this is how the word is properly used).  As for the 3rd party accuser, are you referring to the one that Avenetti is priming for his next run of show appearances?  Last I read they are possibly not coming forward.

Quote:I know what's "right" and "decency" go out the window in DC, so I cannot defend Feinstein sitting on this rather than pushing for a real investigation as soon as she found out, but should due diligence not be done just because she sucks?

Depends.  What doesn't depend is being able to claim you want a thorough investigation when your own actions show you clearly don't care about that at all.  Something about lying in the bed you made comes to mind.

Quote:If he's innocent, it'll remove a blemish.

Dude, please.  The damage to the man's reputation is done.  Short of Ford coming out and saying she made the whole thing up (which still wouldn't satisfy everyone) you'll get people like Chelsea Handler (an awful human being btw) labeling Kavanaugh a sexual predator for the rest of his days.  There is no exoneration from this for him, ever.

[BmorePat87]

(09-25-2018, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Every other news organization refused to print the story because it could not be corroborated.  The New Yorker admits in the article itself the story cannot be corroborated.  (Please note GMDino, this is how the word is properly used).  As for the 3rd party accuser, are you referring to the one that Avenetti is priming for his next run of show appearances?  Last I read they are possibly not coming forward.




Depends.  What doesn't depend is being able to claim you want a thorough investigation when your own actions show you clearly don't care about that at all.  Something about lying in the bed you made comes to mind.


Dude, please.  The damage to the man's reputation is done.  Short of Ford coming out and saying she made the whole thing up (which still wouldn't satisfy everyone) you'll get people like Chelsea Handler (an awful human being btw) labeling Kavanaugh a sexual predator for the rest of his days.  There is no exoneration from this for him, ever.

I did read that CNN didn't get a response back from her lawyers. Murkowski wants her to testify to the Senate. She should. If Avenetti's person isn't coming forward, then that shouldn't play into the Senate's plans. 

With regards to the rest, I don't think the actions of Feinstein should be met with similarly partisan actions, but I acknowledged the naivety in that view. And Chelsea Handler shouldn't be someone we ever consider when discussing serious topics.

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2018, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, please.  The damage to the man's reputation is done.  Short of Ford coming out and saying she made the whole thing up (which still wouldn't satisfy everyone) you'll get people like Chelsea Handler (an awful human being btw) labeling Kavanaugh a sexual predator for the rest of his days.  There is no exoneration from this for him, ever.

This is where Matt and I went on divergent paths earlier in this thread. He posted that awesome tweet about how if Kavs is not confirmed then he and Garland suffered the same fate. They are nowhere near the same. Folks with agendas have tried to slur this guy at every opportunity and there are those that accept it without merit and suggest he should be guilty until proven innocent. 

[GMDino]

Ah...the simpler times (2 years ago) when Garland was nominated.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-SCOTUS-Appointment?page=6&highlight=garland

[GMDino]

Imagine being a Republican woman in the Senate who isn’t deemed worthy of sitting on the Judiciary Committee — and watching your male colleagues hire a woman to ask their questions for them.

— Kaili Joy Gray (@KailiJoy) September 25, 2018

[BmorePat87]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/deborah-ramirez-attorney-kavanaugh-cnntv/index.html?ofs=fbia

2nd accusers lawyer claims that after a lot of negotiation, they had a scheduled phone call with the committee tonight and the Republicans blew them off.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-ford-has-4-people-corroborate-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/

Quote:Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims


The attorneys for [/url]Christine Blasey Ford have sworn and signed declarations from four people who corroborate her claims of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

In documents sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by USA TODAY, Ford’s attorneys present declarations from Ford’s husband, Russell, and three friends who support the California college professor’s accusation that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982.

The declarations will be used by Ford’s attorneys during a committee hearing on Thursday that could determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s embattled nomination. He's also facing a second accusation of sexual assault from Deborah Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself and pushed his genitals into her face at a drunken party during the 1983-84 academic year at Yale University.

Kavanaugh has flatly denied all accusations, including during a national television interview on Fox News on Monday night.

In her declaration, Adela Gildo-Mazzon said Ford told her about the alleged assault during a June 2013 meal at a restaurant in Mountain View, California, and contacted Ford’s attorneys on Sept. 16 to tell them Ford had confided in her five years ago.

“During our meal, Christine was visibly upset, so I asked her what was going on,” Gildo-Mazzon says in her declaration.
“Christine told me she had been having a hard day because she was thinking about an assault she experienced when she was much younger. She said she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she had escaped, ran away and hid.”

According to her declaration, Gildo-Mazzon has known Ford for more than 10 years and considers her to be “a good friend.”

Related: Here's Brett Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar that's being used as evidence against sexual assault allegations
More: Kavanaugh allegations: ‘What boy hasn’t done this in high school?’ Most haven’t, experts say.

In another declaration, Keith Koegler said Ford revealed the alleged assault to him in 2016, when the two parents were watching their children play in a public place and discussing the “light” sentencing of [url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/08/08/stanford-university-swimmer-convicted-assault-denied-new-trial/943186002/]Stanford University student Brock Turner.

“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.

“Christine did not mention the assault to me again until June 29, 2018, two days after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court of the United States,” he said.

On that day, Koegler said Ford revealed to him in an email that the person who had assaulted her in high school was President Donald Trump’s “favorite for SCOTUS.”

In his response email, Koegler wrote, “I remember you telling me about him, but I don’t remember his name. Do you mind telling me so I can read about him?”

Ford’s emailed response: “Brett Kavanaugh.”

In his declaration, Koegler said he met the Fords while coaching their son’s baseball team more than five years ago.

In another declaration, Rebecca White, a neighbor and friend of more than six years, said Ford revealed the alleged assault against her in 2017.


“I was walking my dog and Christine was outside of her house,” White said. “I stopped to speak with her, and she told me she had read a recent social media post I had written about my own experience with sexual assault.


“She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen,” White continued. “I remember her saying that her assailant was now a federal judge.”


In his declaration, Ford’s husband said he learned of his wife’s experience with sexual assault “around the time we got married” but that she didn’t share details until a couple’s therapy session in 2012.


“I remember her saying that her attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine’s home town, and that he was well-known in the Washington D.C. community,” Russell Ford said.


He said his wife was “afraid” Trump would nominate Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court and was “very conflicted” about whether she should come forward with her story.


“However, in the end she believed her civic duty required her to speak out,” Russell Ford said. “In our 16 years of marriage I have always known Christine to be truthful person of great integrity. I am proud of her for her bravery and courage.”

[Belsnickel]

(09-25-2018, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Every other news organization refused to print the story because it could not be corroborated.  The New Yorker admits in the article itself the story cannot be corroborated. 

Was that the reason? My understanding was that the reason why the other two news agencies following the story didn't go to print was because the second accuser had an exclusive set up with the New Yorker. It had nothing to do with them not seeing the story as solid. There have also been several statements that have come out corroborating her story. I'm not saying it happened as she is reporting, but to dismiss it so quickly as you do is misguided.

Just to add this:

The NYT reiterating that they did not “decline” or “pass” on the Ramirez story as claimed by several conservative politicians. They were simply unable to secure the central interview with her (or with the contemporaneous corroborators who spoke to NYer): https://t.co/EofWO9ZE9G pic.twitter.com/GSyqSXyZm1

— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) September 25, 2018

[*michaelsean*]

(09-25-2018, 11:10 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Imagine being a Republican woman in the Senate who isn’t deemed worthy of sitting on the Judiciary Committee — and watching your male colleagues hire a woman to ask their questions for them.

— Kaili Joy Gray (@KailiJoy) September 25, 2018

I mean really?  Not deemed worthy?

[Belsnickel]

The Senate Judiciary Committee is refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, they are refusing to call in others that would be able to help ascertain the facts in this matter. They are refusing to send this to the FBI to investigate. The GOP's chief counsel for nominations, Mike Davis, also known as the person who is supposed to insure a fair and impartial hearing process, made his very partisan tweet last week. After hearing about the second allegation, GOP Senators increased their efforts to move up the vote to get it in before the new allegations broke.

All of these are evidence that there is no intention of getting to the facts of this matter. Call the allegations partisan attacks all you like. Say they are unfounded, fine. Then do a proper investigation and hearing into the matter and show that to the public. Set a deadline to make sure it all wraps up before election day, I'm okay with that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2018, 09:09 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Was that the reason? My understanding was that the reason why the other two news agencies following the story didn't go to print was because the second accuser had an exclusive set up with the New Yorker. It had nothing to do with them not seeing the story as solid. There have also been several statements that have come out corroborating her story. I'm not saying it happened as she is reporting, but to dismiss it so quickly as you do is misguided.

I don't have to dismiss it, the New Yorker article itself does that for me, and anyone else.  It flat out says nothing she claimed could be corroborated.  Apparently she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh until she spent something like six days "memory searching" and speaking to her attorney.  This doesn't have the slightest whiff of bullshit to you?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2018, 09:16 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I mean really?  Not deemed worthy?

Yes.  If a committee ends up with no female members from one party it can only be due to sexism.  I mean, it's not like both parties have a very structured way that these committee seats are apportioned or anything.

(09-26-2018, 09:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Senate Judiciary Committee is refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, they are refusing to call in others that would be able to help ascertain the facts in this matter. They are refusing to send this to the FBI to investigate. The GOP's chief counsel for nominations, Mike Davis, also known as the person who is supposed to insure a fair and impartial hearing process, made his very partisan tweet last week. After hearing about the second allegation, GOP Senators increased their efforts to move up the vote to get it in before the new allegations broke.

All of these are evidence that there is no intention of getting to the facts of this matter. Call the allegations partisan attacks all you like. Say they are unfounded, fine. Then do a proper investigation and hearing into the matter and show that to the public. Set a deadline to make sure it all wraps up before election day, I'm okay with that.

I'll reiterate.  If a full investigation (remind me why the FBI would investigate this non-Federal issue) was important to the Dems they would have asked for one when they first received the allegations, i.e. months ago.  They decided to play politics with it instead and it's apparently not going to work out for them.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-26-2018, 09:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Senate Judiciary Committee is refusing to subpoena Mark Judge, they are refusing to call in others that would be able to help ascertain the facts in this matter. They are refusing to send this to the FBI to investigate. The GOP's chief counsel for nominations, Mike Davis, also known as the person who is supposed to insure a fair and impartial hearing process, made his very partisan tweet last week. After hearing about the second allegation, GOP Senators increased their efforts to move up the vote to get it in before the new allegations broke.

All of these are evidence that there is no intention of getting to the facts of this matter. Call the allegations partisan attacks all you like. Say they are unfounded, fine. Then do a proper investigation and hearing into the matter and show that to the public. Set a deadline to make sure it all wraps up before election day, I'm okay with that.

It actually wouldn't have to wind up until they seat a new congress I would guess, but this should have been brought up months ago.  Dr Ford, Feinstein and anyone else who knew of the allegations months ago made the choice to stay silent.  

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 09:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't have to dismiss it, the New Yorker article itself does that for me, and anyone else.  It flat out says nothing she claimed could be corroborated.  Apparently she wasn't even sure it was Kavanaugh until she spent something like six days "memory searching" and speaking to her attorney.  This doesn't have the slightest whiff of bullshit to you?

It does, but there has been a lot that has come out on her side of the story from people at Yale during the time. Including Kavanaugh's own roommate who contradicted Kavanaugh's statements. Again, I just think you are dismissing it too easily.

(09-26-2018, 09:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll reiterate.  If a full investigation (remind me why the FBI would investigate this non-Federal issue) was important to the Dems they would have asked for one when they first received the allegations, i.e. months ago.  They decided to play politics with it instead and it's apparently not going to work out for them.

Your two-wrongs-make-a-right argument aside, why shouldn't the public want to get to the truth? Shouldn't we, the public, be concerned about this? If someone is going to be going on the bench of the highest court in the land, shouldn't we want someone whose ethics are above reproach?

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 09:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It actually wouldn't have to wind up until they seat a new congress I would guess, but this should have been brought up months ago.  Dr Ford, Feinstein and anyone else who knew of the allegations months ago made the choice to stay silent.  

I know, but it is better for everyone, politically, for this to wrap up before then.

As for the second part about timing, so? When it was brought up there should've immediately been an investigation. But there was a lot of dragging of feet by the GOP on that and an eventual refusal. No one's hands are clean on this in the Senate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-26-2018, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It does, but there has been a lot that has come out on her side of the story from people at Yale during the time. Including Kavanaugh's own roommate who contradicted Kavanaugh's statements. Again, I just think you are dismissing it too easily.

I haven't seen anything that makes the story more credible.  

Quote:Your two-wrongs-make-a-right argument aside, why shouldn't the public want to get to the truth? Shouldn't we, the public, be concerned about this? If someone is going to be going on the bench of the highest court in the land, shouldn't we want someone whose ethics are above reproach?

No, I'm just sickened by this entire process.  This, more than any other incident in my lifetime, makes me lament the state of our nation.  The whole thing has been a joke from start to finish.  I see no middle ground anymore because neither side wants one.  I see no interest in truth from either side, only how best to achieve their aims.  I see a horrible precedent being set.  Not long ago I saw the Democratic party as occupying a morally superior high ground.  Now I see them covered in mud, with the only thing distinguishing them from the GOP is what group of extremists they cater to and quite honestly, at the moment, their extremists appear to be far more extreme.  The Dems botched this, they have themselves to blame.

[Belsnickel]

(09-26-2018, 09:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I'm just sickened by this entire process.  This, more than any other incident in my lifetime, makes me lament the state of our nation.  The whole thing has been a joke from start to finish.  I see no middle ground anymore because neither side wants one.  I see no interest in truth from either side, only how best to achieve their aims.  I see a horrible precedent being set.  Not long ago I saw the Democratic party as occupying a morally superior high ground.  Now I see them covered in mud, with the only thing distinguishing them from the GOP is what group of extremists they cater to and quite honestly, at the moment, their extremists appear to be far more extreme.  The Dems botched this, they have themselves to blame.

So the branches of our government that are the more political branches are being terrible, and they nominate a known partisan actor with questionable ethics to the branch intended to check those two and (in theory) be above the partisan/political bickering, and you're okay with it, but you're unhappy with the way the political branches are acting.

Gotcha.