Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1151  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:05 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I love this part: "We regret not going to greater lengths to ensure this was indeed the same Christine Ford. "

I noticed the error in about 2 seconds. "Greater lengths" indeed!
Zero is a length, isn't it?
  #1152  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:06 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I love this part: "We regret not going to greater lengths to ensure this was indeed the same Christine Ford. "

I noticed the error in about 2 seconds. "Greater lengths" indeed!
Yeah, the extent of their IDing was probably "Christine Ford, college professor, California - yep, gotta be her."
  #1153  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:09 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,166
The car in Stephen Kings Christine? That was a Ford, right? dunt-dunt-DUN!
  #1154  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:10 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So you're saying they wouldn't float like a hummingbird. Might they still sting like a bee?
Well, there are those pointy tails, so you never know!


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yeah, the extent of their IDing was probably "Christine Ford, college professor, California - yep, gotta be her."
Palo Alto... Fullerton... what's the difference. Same state, how far apart could they be?
  #1155  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:12 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So you're saying they wouldn't float like a hummingbird. Might they still sting like a bee?
No, but they'll stink like a sumbitch!
  #1156  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:14 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
But it's 35 years later. No amount of inconsistencies are going to prove or disprove the story (especially disprove it, since there's also the "trauma" trump card to explain it all away).

Certainly she'll have a chance to tell her story if she wants to. I just don't see that anything meaningful can possibly come out of it.
I agree fully with this. If a person makes an allegation of sexual assault and tells a consistent story, it shows how forcefully those horrible acts were pressed into her memory. If she tells an inconsistent story, it shows how the trauma of the event did not allow her to recall things accurately.

But I agree with you. We have a story from 1982 with only one witness who denies the accuser's story, but never mind that, she said it, so she gets her fifteen minutes of fame, with no possibility of being proven a liar or with Kavanaugh having no possibility of clearing his name.

She had from 1982 until 2018 to come forward with this story. She waits until the eve of a confirmation vote for the United States Supreme Court. That is not fundamental fairness in any way and although we should be sympathetic to accusers, we should also be sympathetic to the accused as well. If you have something to say, don't wait 36 years.

As nobody can ever have any idea if this story is true, I agree with you that it is a waste of time to hear the stories: there can never be a definite finding. If this is enough for someone to change their vote from "for" to "against" Kavanaugh, then we have a blueprint for derailing any nominee in the future. ANY nominee. We also have created a format for any whackjob (again, I don't know if Ford qualifies, but we have created the format) for any desperate person looking for his or her fifteen minutes to get it.

Fundamental fairness requires more. Let the plaintive wails of how I don't understand sexual assault begin in 3..2..1

Last edited by UltraVires; 09-17-2018 at 02:15 PM.
  #1157  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree fully with this. If a person makes an allegation of sexual assault and tells a consistent story, it shows how forcefully those horrible acts were pressed into her memory. If she tells an inconsistent story, it shows how the trauma of the event did not allow her to recall things accurately.

But I agree with you. We have a story from 1982 with only one witness who denies the accuser's story, but never mind that, she said it, so she gets her fifteen minutes of fame, with no possibility of being proven a liar or with Kavanaugh having no possibility of clearing his name.

She had from 1982 until 2018 to come forward with this story. She waits until the eve of a confirmation vote for the United States Supreme Court. That is not fundamental fairness in any way and although we should be sympathetic to accusers, we should also be sympathetic to the accused as well. If you have something to say, don't wait 36 years.

As nobody can ever have any idea if this story is true, I agree with you that it is a waste of time to hear the stories: there can never be a definite finding. If this is enough for someone to change their vote from "for" to "against" Kavanaugh, then we have a blueprint for derailing any nominee in the future. ANY nominee. We also have created a format for any whackjob (again, I don't know if Ford qualifies, but we have created the format) for any desperate person looking for his or her fifteen minutes to get it.

Fundamental fairness requires more. Let the plaintive wails of how I don't understand sexual assault to being in 3..2..1
This just seems like an awfully flimsy and weird justification for literally doing nothing about a credible allegation, even an old one. Why not investigate it? Maybe they could find something out. Maybe Kavanaugh will have an explanation, or change his story, or a million other possibilities. Maybe other accusers will come forward. Why is it so terrible to just take some time and investigate a credible allegation before we seat a possible attempted rapist on the SCOTUS?
  #1158  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:17 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We'll see. If what comes out of it is a change to the support of Kavanugh, then that will be very "meaningful".
I meant "meaningful" in terms of establishing the veracity of the charge. It's certainly possible that it will be highly effective as PR and will derail the nomination. Not likely, but certainly possible.
  #1159  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:18 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Here's an article linked to by Drudge, and based on the comments is likely from a right-wing site, but according to the article she's highly unpopular with her students. Not only a bad teacher ("something is wrong with her"), but is also vindictive and someone you don't want to get on the bad side of. She's also a Democrat of course.
I mean, this smear literally didn't last an hour after you linked to it.

What's your next hilariously wrong rebuttal?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #1160  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:19 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You realize, of course, that you are applying your own spin to the story about the story? Right? So it seems you aren't really advocating a "no-spin" zone, you're just advocating a "my spin" zone.

ETA: are you suggesting with that photo that the report is on his knees in the water, or suggesting that water does not often get deeper the more you wade into it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think he was standing in a ditch alongside the road to exaggerate the severity of the flooding. I'm suggesting that he was attempting to deceive his viewers. ETA: It's not really the topic of this thread though, so let's drop the subject for purposes of this thread at least.
Another right wing 4chan story thoroughly debunked by snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/an...per-hurricane/

1. The shot is from 10 years ago from Hurricane Ike. Not Hurricane Florence of 2018.

2. In the report, "...the various available clips of the program document that the waters in the immediately surrounding area were both fairly deep and quite variable." So the original poster of this meme was likely aware of its inaccuracy: it was a bad faith attack on CNN.

3. Speaking generally, responsible readers should to evaluate their information sources when they are shown to be bad. The 4chan image meme was mislabeled and misleading.
  #1161  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I meant "meaningful" in terms of establishing the veracity of the charge. It's certainly possible that it will be highly effective as PR and will derail the nomination. Not likely, but certainly possible.
It's also possible (greater than zero chance) that meaningful info in terms of the veracity of the charges will come out. Further, there's no reasonable non-political downside to conducting an investigation of a credible allegation. We'll see.
  #1162  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:21 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
LOL. Drudge's smearing link above has since been revised to indicate that they smeared the wrong Christine Ford.


In that event, consider my post retracted as well.
  #1163  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:27 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Uh no. That's a non-apology apology. Those don't fly these days, as Kevin Spacey can attest. It does not acknowledge holding her down, or trying to take off her swimming suit, just some unspecific "boisterous youthful misbehaving". He'd be done, DONE, with this kind of response.

If he didn't do it, categorically denying it was perfectly appropriate. Again, if he didn't do it, no further anything will change that fact.
There's a discussion to be had here, though, about #metoo and rehabilitation.

Imagine, say, an inner-city kid caught up in drug dealing, which undeniably harms his community, causes trauma, etc. He spends some time in prison, reforms his ways, becomes a fixture of good in the community, and eventually runs for office. Should his candidacy be DOA because of his past indiscretions?

What if it was armed robbery instead, of the sort that might leave someone permanently traumatized? Felony rules notwithstanding, could someone, after spending their due time in prison, with an otherwise spotless 30 year public service career, be a good judge? I'd certainly think so.

I'd actually agree with iiandyiiii here. IF Kavanaugh had admitted to heavy drinking, either admitted to the assault or admitted that it was possible, and addressed the issue in the manner you'd expect someone of his office and stature, I'd still be fine with him being on the court (overall saltiness about Merrick Garland notwithstanding).
  #1164  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:28 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As nobody can ever have any idea if this story is true
There are at least two who can, including the nominee.

Quote:
I agree with you that it is a waste of time to hear the stories: there can never be a definite finding.
The issue isn't really about the rape attempt, let the justice system deal with it if it can. The issue is the character and truthfulness of the nominee, including the depth of understanding of life and, yes, adulthood with which he responds.

Quote:
We also have created a format for any whackjob (again, I don't know if Ford qualifies, but we have created the format) for any desperate person looking for his or her fifteen minutes to get it.
Nice job of poisoning the well while claiming you aren't.

Quote:
Fundamental fairness requires more.
Don't it though?
  #1165  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:30 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Fundamental fairness
You don't get to have fairness. What you get is what I've been told is the Gold Standard of treatment. Is it prohibited by the Constitution?

Clearly, it is NOT prohibited, thus you, and your entire side of the aisle can dispense with your pathetic whining about fairness, or maltreatment of your nominee.
  #1166  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:37 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,166
The whole #metoo thing is going to be a mess. We will be confused, clumsy, and ill advised, we can pretty much guarantee fuck ups.

But it has to be done. Our mothers, our sisters and our daughters demand it, and deserve it. They are ours as we are theirs, and this is long, long overdue.
  #1167  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:39 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I'd actually agree with iiandyiiii here. IF Kavanaugh had admitted to heavy drinking, either admitted to the assault or admitted that it was possible, and addressed the issue in the manner you'd expect someone of his office and stature, I'd still be fine with him being on the court (overall saltiness about Merrick Garland notwithstanding).
Why should he admit to "heavy drinking", or an assault if that didn't happen?

That's idiotic.

If your assumption is he did it, fine. I do not think many people, especially democrats, would say his nomination should go forward, if it did, in fact, happen. Myself included.

Of course, I do not think anything will surface that will prove or disprove this claim any more than we already know. Maybe some other women will come out, maybe they won't. But this particular instance? No, I think it will remain a he said/he said/she said, the same as it is now.

I, personally, would be quite pleased if either of the other two runner ups took the forefront, and I doubt Amy Coney Barrett will be torpedoed by a #MeToo moment.
  #1168  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:39 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
... but never mind that, she said it, so she gets her fifteen minutes of fame....

Fundamental fairness requires more. Let the plaintive wails of how I don't understand sexual assault begin in 3..2..1
Would you enjoy it if your 15 minutes of fame was based on being the victim of a sexual assault? Serious question. And I'd appreciate an answer if you see a difference between your allegation being true or not true.

For example, let's say you claim that you were raped by a political opponent. All that most people will know of you was that you were ass-fucked by a real lefty. Would you take enjoyment out of people seeing you at the grocery store and saying, "Hey! There's the guy that was ass-fucked by that Democrat!" Or, you go to the airport, and the TSA agent says, "You set the metal detector off. I'm gonna have to get you to bend over and I'll just come up behind you and.... a-hahaha! I'm just kidding! I know who you are!" And so on and so on -- from now on, you're the guy that was ass-fucked by a politician.

Do you think that's a thing that people generally like being known for?
  #1169  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:43 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's also possible (greater than zero chance) that meaningful info in terms of the veracity of the charges will come out. Further, there's no reasonable non-political downside to conducting an investigation of a credible allegation. We'll see.
There's a non-zero chance, but not much more than that, I would think.

A political downside is a real downside. Politics represents real considerations. If this "investigation" is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate then a lot changes (even just taking the pressure off the Red State Democrats changes things a bit). Of course, this is a big plus for Democrats (and is going to be especially compelling in light of Garland) which is one possible reason they've gone for this approach. But from the Republican standpoint, it's a real reason.

This is not to say that "getting our guy in" trumps all other considerations. But if the argument is just that "there's no non-political downside", I don't buy that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I, personally, would be quite pleased if either of the other two runner ups took the forefront, and I doubt Amy Coney Barrett will be torpedoed by a #MeToo moment.
#metoo is for males. If ACB were nominated there would be other lines of attack for her.

(One reason she didn't get nominated was because she was less of a sure shot at confirmation than Kavanagh.)

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 09-17-2018 at 02:46 PM.
  #1170  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:49 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Why should he admit to "heavy drinking", or an assault if that didn't happen?

That's idiotic.

If your assumption is he did it, fine. I do not think many people, especially democrats, would say his nomination should go forward, if it did, in fact, happen. Myself included.
Well I think Ford makes a pretty compelling witness, and the other bits I've read about Kavanaugh's penchant for drinking in high school make that part of the story pretty believable, so yes, my assumption is that he did it. But I don't think that getting drunk and traumatizing a 15 year old, as awful as that is, should be a perpetual disqualifier for everything. I'd agree that this probably puts me in a minority, especially among democrats, but I think that's a discussion that's worth having. And since I think he did behave as accused, I think he'd have been smart to address the accusation like an adult and I'd hope it wouldn't have been the think that tanked his appointment.

If he didn't do it, then sure, deny it, but that doesn't get to the point I was agreeing with.
  #1171  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:50 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
There's a non-zero chance, but not much more than that, I would think.

A political downside is a real downside. Politics represents real considerations. If this "investigation" is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate then a lot changes (even just taking the pressure off the Red State Democrats changes things a bit). Of course, this is a big plus for Democrats (and is going to be especially compelling in light of Garland) which is one possible reason they've gone for this approach. But from the Republican standpoint, it's a real reason.

This is not to say that "getting our guy in" trumps all other considerations. But if the argument is just that "there's no non-political downside", I don't buy that.#metoo is for males. If ACB were nominated there would be other lines of attack for her.

(One reason she didn't get nominated was because she was less of a sure shot at confirmation than Kavanagh.)
Whether or not "this 'investigation is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate" is entirely in the hands of Republicans. No tears need be shed.
  #1172  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:52 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Would you enjoy it if your 15 minutes of fame was based on being the victim of a sexual assault? Serious question. And I'd appreciate an answer if you see a difference between your allegation being true or not true.

For example, let's say you claim that you were raped by a political opponent. All that most people will know of you was that you were ass-fucked by a real lefty. Would you take enjoyment out of people seeing you at the grocery store and saying, "Hey! There's the guy that was ass-fucked by that Democrat!" Or, you go to the airport, and the TSA agent says, "You set the metal detector off. I'm gonna have to get you to bend over and I'll just come up behind you and.... a-hahaha! I'm just kidding! I know who you are!" And so on and so on -- from now on, you're the guy that was ass-fucked by a politician.

Do you think that's a thing that people generally like being known for?
That's not a fair question because the situations are not at all comparable.

Women who accuse men of sex assault are treated as heroic survivors these days. I don't think the same is true to nearly the same extent of male survivors.

It's a bit more complicated in political situations like this one as there's a risk of a bit of blowback from fringe elements of the opposition. But many people live in atmospheres which are so ideologically monolithic that this doesn't have any real impact.

In sum, the best guess as to the reaction of the population to this woman's claims is that she's a hero to #metoo and Democrats, mainstream Republicans are hesitant to criticize her, and a few MRA-types call her names. That's a pretty good deal, for some people.

Anita Hill has been working that accusation for many years now, and just came up for another 15 minutes now. She's not running from it.
  #1173  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:53 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you think that's a thing that people generally like being known for?
Not only that, but she went out of her way not to have this get out. She quietly wrote a letter to her local rep, who passed it of to Feinstein, who gave it to the WH, who [did the right thing] and included it in the nomination package, where other senate Democrats got hold of it and leaked it. She didn't go straight to the press with this, she clearly wanted it to go to the decision makers and the decision makers only.
  #1174  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:54 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This just seems like an awfully flimsy and weird justification for literally doing nothing about a credible allegation, even an old one.
It is an accusation for sure. I see no evidence that it is credible or not credible at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Would you enjoy it if your 15 minutes of fame was based on being the victim of a sexual assault? Serious question.
I'm not willing to lie, but this isn't a matter of what people would generally be okay with. All it takes is a single person, and I do believe there are people who would be willing to lie to torpedo the nomination, willing to accept whatever stigma may come, if any, if the result would be the nomination gets torpedoed.
  #1175  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:55 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-P
Women who accuse men of sex assault are treated as heroic survivors these days.
Ooooooh, I see. It's the women who have it easy, and men so dearly wish to be treated like women for their easy ride through life! Because if men are the victims of sexual assault, all you hear is things like, "What were you wearing? How drunk were you? Were you leading your rapist on?"

It's sort of like how the gays have it easy in this country, while Christians have to deal with all this hostility like the war on Christmas!

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-17-2018 at 02:57 PM.
  #1176  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:56 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Whether or not "this 'investigation is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate" is entirely in the hands of Republicans.
I don't know about that. "That was a perfunctory investigation. There's no way you can investigate this matter is such a short time ..."
Quote:
No tears need be shed.
No need to shed tears for anyone on either side. This is the political major leagues and there's no crying in baseball. But we're discussing how this or that side should play the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
She quietly wrote a letter to her local rep, who passed it of to Feinstein, who gave it to the WH, who [did the right thing] and included it in the nomination package, where other senate Democrats got hold of it and leaked it.
I don't think this is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Ooooooh, I see. It's the women who have it easy, and men so dearly wish to be treated like women for their easy ride through life!
I was addressing the comparison you made in your prior post, not the one you're making now.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 09-17-2018 at 02:58 PM.
  #1177  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:58 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Well I think Ford makes a pretty compelling witness, and the other bits I've read about Kavanaugh's penchant for drinking in high school make that part of the story pretty believable, so yes, my assumption is that he did it. But I don't think that getting drunk and traumatizing a 15 year old, as awful as that is, should be a perpetual disqualifier for everything. I'd agree that this probably puts me in a minority, especially among democrats, but I think that's a discussion that's worth having. And since I think he did behave as accused, I think he'd have been smart to address the accusation like an adult and I'd hope it wouldn't have been the think that tanked his appointment.

If he didn't do it, then sure, deny it, but that doesn't get to the point I was agreeing with.
Yes besides i)being unsure as to the actual year of the event ii) tor the location iii) the number of peoples in the House iv) impeaching her own corroborating evidence, she is the best witness ever
  #1178  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:20 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
But I don't think that getting drunk and traumatizing a 15 year old, as awful as that is, should be a perpetual disqualifier for everything.
Not as such, no. But shouldn't denial, refusal to accept responsibility, and failure to learn and grow be disqualifying for a Supreme Court Justice?
  #1179  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:20 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This just seems like an awfully flimsy and weird justification for literally doing nothing about a credible allegation, even an old one. Why not investigate it? Maybe they could find something out. Maybe Kavanaugh will have an explanation, or change his story, or a million other possibilities. Maybe other accusers will come forward. Why is it so terrible to just take some time and investigate a credible allegation before we seat a possible attempted rapist on the SCOTUS?
What makes the allegation credible? Simply because it was physically possible? What in your mind would be an "incredible" allegation?

What if I said (and mods, I am not really making this allegation) that I met Kavanaugh at a legal conference some years ago, maybe in 2003, let's say, and that he invited me back to his room and attempted to force homosexual intercourse on me? Let's say I said that tomorrow. Should the committee investigate? Should the vote be delayed? Do I get to be on national TV?
  #1180  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:20 PM
andros andros is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
The car in Stephen Kings Christine? That was a Ford, right? dunt-dunt-DUN!
"Christine was in fact a Plymouth Fury. We regret the slight inaccuracy, but all those shrill liberal cars kinda look alike, don't they?"
  #1181  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It is an accusation for sure. I see no evidence that it is credible or not credible at this time.
As I understand it, there's plenty of evidence to make it credible -- for example:

Ford lived in the area and went to school in the area at the time in question;
One of the alleged attempted rapists (Judge) has written a memoir in which he tells stories about his own and his friend Kavanaugh's drunken misbehavior in high school (no attempted rapes are mentioned, of course);
Ford told her therapist and husband about the assault several years ago.

Further, nothing has come to light that would cast an negative light on Ford's honesty -- no criminal record, no history of dishonesty, etc.

With all that in mind, it seems entirely reasonable to call her allegations credible.
  #1182  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:23 PM
andros andros is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
...Let's say I said that tomorrow. Should the committee investigate? Should the vote be delayed? Do I get to be on national TV?
What evidence do you have to corroborate your allegation? Was anyone else there? Have you spoken about the incident to others in the past?
  #1183  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
There's a non-zero chance, but not much more than that, I would think.

A political downside is a real downside. Politics represents real considerations. If this "investigation" is dragged out long enough and the Democrats retake the Senate then a lot changes (even just taking the pressure off the Red State Democrats changes things a bit). Of course, this is a big plus for Democrats (and is going to be especially compelling in light of Garland) which is one possible reason they've gone for this approach. But from the Republican standpoint, it's a real reason.

This is not to say that "getting our guy in" trumps all other considerations. But if the argument is just that "there's no non-political downside", I don't buy that.
But you just described a political downside. I never said it wasn't a "real" downside from the perspective of the Republicans. But it's still a political downside. You haven't offered any non-political downside for investigating these allegations.
  #1184  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:25 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Not as such, no. But shouldn't denial, refusal to accept responsibility, and failure to learn and grow be disqualifying for a Supreme Court Justice?
Yes; the alternate reality iiandyiiii had postulated, and to which I was ultimately responding, is one in which Kavanaugh hadn't done all of those things.

In real reality, of course, he has simply denied everything.

Last edited by steronz; 09-17-2018 at 03:25 PM.
  #1185  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What makes the allegation credible? Simply because it was physically possible? What in your mind would be an "incredible" allegation?

What if I said (and mods, I am not really making this allegation) that I met Kavanaugh at a legal conference some years ago, maybe in 2003, let's say, and that he invited me back to his room and attempted to force homosexual intercourse on me? Let's say I said that tomorrow. Should the committee investigate? Should the vote be delayed? Do I get to be on national TV?
Were you at that conference in 2003? Was Kavanaugh? Did you tell your therapist several years later about it? Did you tell your spouse? If all these answers are "yes" (and have been confirmed by journalists), then your allegation is credible.

Ford did go to school in that area, at the time in question, she told her therapist and husband decades later, etc. All this has been confirmed by journalists.
  #1186  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:28 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But you just described a political downside. I never said it wasn't a "real" downside from the perspective of the Republicans. But it's still a political downside. You haven't offered any non-political downside for investigating these allegations.
Exactly.

My response is rather that your insistence on a non-political downside is not determinative.
  #1187  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:30 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I don't think this is correct.
It's roughly correct, although I may not be clear on the timeline of the WH's involvement. And she did apparently go to the press, but refused to go on the record.

Quote:
she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California...

In the letter ... Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. ...

Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.

...

By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” she said.

Her story leaked anyway.
  #1188  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Exactly.

My response is rather that your insistence on a non-political downside is not determinative.
So would you disagree with the assertion that it's not reasonable to value partisan political concerns over getting to the bottom of a credible allegation of attempted rape prior to seating someone on SCOTUS?
  #1189  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:32 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,009
I see that Sen. Hatch has taken the F-P position: it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl.

Speaking in purely political terms, a bunch of GOP Senators taking that position strikes me as the best outcome Dems could hope for. They aren't gonna get a better SCOTUS nominee (politically speaking, again). But they might win some more seats in Congress with another round of proof that a lot of Republicans don't really care about sexual assault.
  #1190  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:33 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,743
If this is a frame job, Ford is playing a seriously long game. She told her husband and therapist about this years ago, well preceding any thought that this guy would be nominated for the SC. She didn't go right to TMZ with it, she sent a quiet letter to a Rep, requesting anonymity, and didn't demand promotion of the incident.

That's not to say that her accusation is valid, but it doesn't smell like a dishonest frame job.
  #1191  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:34 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
they might win some more seats in Congress with another round of proof that a lot of Republicans don't really care about sexual assault.
Let's hope so. But remember, less than two years ago we thought nobody could possibly vote for a pussy-grabber. How'd that turn out?
  #1192  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:39 PM
Ambrosio Spinola Ambrosio Spinola is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 685
Democrats still can't stop the nomination (by themselves) and never could, but McConnell was clearly right to have cold feet about Kavanaugh initially. I suspect that there were equally conservative candidates who would have already had their commission by now and maybe even with some Democratic votes, at that. If this drags on some of those people may look increasingly attractive.
  #1193  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:41 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambrosio Spinola View Post
McConnell was clearly right to have cold feet about Kavanaugh initially.
One can only wonder what he knew about him (documentation of which he's still keeping hidden). I'm guessing it wasn't this, though.
  #1194  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:41 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Let's hope so. But remember, less than two years ago we thought nobody could possibly vote for a pussy-grabber. How'd that turn out?
Sure. I'm not saying it's gonna alter the course of history or anything. But I do think given the high levels of political engagement among liberal and moderate women right now, it does not help the GOP hold both chambers to have the central news story be that they are OK enough with attempted rape to not hold it against a SCOTUS nominee.

There are lot of good reasons apart from politics to want the GOP to nix Kavanaugh and replace him with Hardiman or whoever. I'm just saying that the best scenario in terms of victory for liberal policies is probably confirming Kavanaugh on Hatch's rationale.
  #1195  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:46 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,417
If Ford cannot name the exact year or place that the alleged assault occurred, would it it even be possible for Kavanaugh to have an alibi? What possible way could he disprove these allegations other than denying it?
  #1196  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:49 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz
She quietly wrote a letter to her local rep, who passed it of to Feinstein, who gave it to the WH, who [did the right thing] and included it in the nomination package, where other senate Democrats got hold of it and leaked it.
I don't think this is correct.
I thought somebody other than Ford sent it to her Rep, who gave it to Feinstein, who discussed with her staff and concluded that it couldn't be acted on. Then nothing else was sticking to Kavanaugh, so Feinstein announced it publicly and referred it to the FBI, who responded that they couldn't do anything with it because it was thirtyfive years old.

Feinstein said she was respecting the wishes, either of the letter writer, or Ms. Ford, or both, or something, in not pursuing it. But, like I say, nothing was sticking to Kavanaugh, so Feinstein dropped her bombshell after sitting on it for six weeks. The chance that Feinstein believed it wouldn't be leaked immediately after it was made public are approximately 0%.

As I mentioned, this is somewhat similar to what happened to Anita Hill, who wanted to make her accusations anonymously and force Thomas to withdraw. Then Nina Totenberg got Hill's affidavit leaked to her, and contacted Hill to tell her that she was going to be made public whether she liked it or not. Same thing here - Feinstein said "you don't want your name dragged thru the mud? Tough toenails, honey - we need to stop Kavanaugh, and we haven't got anything else. You're going public - get used to it."

In the immortal words of Animal House - "You fucked up - you trusted us. Don't dwell on the past."

Regards,
Shodan
  #1197  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:52 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I thought somebody other than Ford sent it to her Rep, who gave it to Feinstein, who discussed with her staff and concluded that it couldn't be acted on. Then nothing else was sticking to Kavanaugh, so Feinstein announced it publicly and referred it to the FBI, who responded that they couldn't do anything with it because it was thirtyfive years old. ...
If only someone in this thread had posted a cite explaining how the accusation was made public... (scroll up)
  #1198  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:53 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Were you at that conference in 2003? Was Kavanaugh? Did you tell your therapist several years later about it? Did you tell your spouse? If all these answers are "yes" (and have been confirmed by journalists), then your allegation is credible.

Ford did go to school in that area, at the time in question, she told her therapist and husband decades later, etc. All this has been confirmed by journalists.
So, had she come forward in 2005 prior to Kavanaugh's appointment to the D.C. Circuit, you would have said that her allegation was not credible?

You make much of the fact that she went to school in the area, but she cannot show that her and Kavanaugh were in the same house (much like how I cannot show that we were at the same conference).
  #1199  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:57 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 13,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I thought somebody other than Ford sent it to her Rep, who gave it to Feinstein, who discussed with her staff and concluded that it couldn't be acted on. Then nothing else was sticking to Kavanaugh, so Feinstein announced it publicly and referred it to the FBI, who responded that they couldn't do anything with it because it was thirtyfive years old.
Even if the allegations are absolutely true, why would the FBI do anything? Since when does the FBI investigate teenagers for non-penetrative sex crimes? Especially from 1982. It's not that slow down at the Bureau.

Last edited by UltraVires; 09-17-2018 at 03:58 PM.
  #1200  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:57 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
If Ford cannot name the exact year or place that the alleged assault occurred, would it it even be possible for Kavanaugh to have an alibi? What possible way could he disprove these allegations other than denying it?
This isn't a trial. It's a job interview.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017