Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:01 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
... (by thoroughly investigating every serious allegation, of which this one certainly qualifies). ...
LOL, no, it does not. The sooner you can admit you got duped, just like the NYT, the better this will go for you.

The woman has no memory it. The alleged eyewitness, a Clinton-associated lawyer, doesn't want to talk about it. The allegation was made third-hand by a couple of anonymous people that supposedly talked to him about it. And again, even if it were true, it's not clear that Kavanaugh isn't the victim in this case.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-16-2019 at 10:05 AM.
  #102  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,801
Some more details about how the FBI purposefully limited the investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh: https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...h-confirmation

Congress should use its own powers, as much as they can, to fully investigate all of these allegations, as well as Kavanaugh's possible perjury under oath.
  #103  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:27 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Hypothetically, let's suppose the RBG had a deep dark secret. Witnesses come forward, and state that she was a member of the Nazi Party/the KKK/the Communists. At first it's just one witness, who can't remember when exactly RBG attended meetings or how many or which city. But later, 25 witnesses are dug up and even her handwriting on a meeting sign in sheet is found. (but it might not be her handwriting, but it looks like it)

Does this really change anything? Would you call for RBG's immediate removal from the Supreme Court? Maybe there's even a mechanism - perhaps the statue of limitations for the crimes the club she was allegedly in have passed, but maybe she was asked a direct question during her confirmation hearing and she turns out to have lied.

Would you call for her impeachment, knowing that Trump is immediately going to replace RBG with the most conservative, bigoted, young, well connected attorney he can find?
Because I don't see any other responses to this, YES. I would ABSOLUTELY and IMMEDIATELY push for RBG to be impeached if it had turned out that she had been a Nazi or KKK member. "Communist" is much more vague but since you put it in the same sentence as KKK or Nazi I would assume you're not talking about some softcore "spread the wealth" communism but the kind of bomb-throwing communists people were so worried about in the 60s. Under any of those scenarios, unless RBG had a very good explanation, I would want her impeached ASAP.
  #104  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:30 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,908
I don't understand how that's even a question. Or rather, I do -- if one is genuinely so much of a partisan back that he's fine with a rapist on our supreme court just because he'll protect gun rights and ban abortions, it makes sense to think that The "other side" would be cool with Nazis or KKK members as long as they are liberal enough. I'm sure there are some on the left for which this is true; they disgust me.
  #105  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:39 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
LOL, no, it does not. The sooner you can admit you got duped, just like the NYT, the better this will go for you.

The woman has no memory it. The alleged eyewitness, a Clinton-associated lawyer, doesn't want to talk about it. The allegation was made third-hand by a couple of anonymous people that supposedly talked to him about it. And again, even if it were true, it's not clear that Kavanaugh isn't the victim in this case.
I find it more plausible that..

1. Women simply don't want to go on the record and have their own lives thrown into the public spotlight by hyperpartisans at Fox etc. who will always blame the woman; and
2. Do so without any expectation that anything will actually be done, considering that the person in question is virtually guaranteed to spend the rest of his life immunized from any repercussions from allegations like these;

...than that Antifa (or whoever your left-wing boogeyman is these days) completely fabricated all these allegations out of whole cloth going back decades, and yet have zero interest in making other accusations about all the other right-wing judges on the bench throughout the Federal government.
  #106  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:41 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,441
"Come on, you guys are just as amoral as we are. Oppose Nazism? Now you're just virtue signaling!"
  #107  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:44 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,801
Senator Chris Coons wrote to the FBI director last October about what Max Stier had said, and still the FBI did nothing: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/c...ation-fbi-wray

If the FBI had investigated it, they could have possibly obtained more witness testimony, identified other possible witnesses and interviewed them, etc.
  #108  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:50 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,757
Remember the D side did cause Franken to leave without much investigation at all ... meanwhile all that had been asked for and denied in this case is that full investigation. Mirror universe RBG would be investigated, allowed to offer explanations, and if such demonstrated her past evil deeds and her ongoing lying about them then she'd be tossed, gently (her bones are brittle), out the door.

I'm on record as thinking that elevating this with any attention and these calls for impeachment are dumb. Sure to change no minds, and to accomplish no good. But on the plus side ... it at least gets Beto's idiocy out of the news cycle!

Warren joining the impeachment chorus disappoints me. I may believe the allegations but impeachment would and should require more than personal belief. Demanding investigation into whether or not the Trump administration prevented full investigations and determining what the solid evidence is fair, as is a call to fully investigate whether or not Kavanaugh lied under oath or otherwise committed an impeachable offense. Calling for non-partisan complete investigations is fair and just (even if stupid politically). Calling for impeachment without that investigation? That's "execute now trial later" shit.

You lose people with that shit.
  #109  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:59 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,908
Impeachment doesn't mean what you think it does:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Impeachmentin the United States is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury
Calling for impeachment IS calling for an investigation. It's not "execute now trial later", it IS the trial.
  #110  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:21 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,757
It is alleging crimes and bringing charges based on them, with conviction resulting in removal from office. You bring charges AFTER you have the evidence of such alleged crimes in hand.

If that very precise rather than hyperbolic phrasing makes a difference to you fine. From a politically and public relations functional POV it is "execute first". That's how it plays even with many who believe he is guilty of both sexual assault and perjury, let alone to those who weren't sure.
  #111  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:23 AM
eenerms is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Finally...Wisc...!
Posts: 2,916
NYT retracted.
  #112  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:32 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It is alleging crimes and bringing charges based on them, with conviction resulting in removal from office. You bring charges AFTER you have the evidence of such alleged crimes in hand.

If that very precise rather than hyperbolic phrasing makes a difference to you fine. From a politically and public relations functional POV it is "execute first". That's how it plays even with many who believe he is guilty of both sexual assault and perjury, let alone to those who weren't sure.
Seems to me like we have lots of evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony, which Congress should hear. What other kinds of evidence would you rather wait For? Rape kits?
  #113  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:33 AM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenerms View Post
NYT retracted.
No they didn't.
  #114  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:58 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenerms View Post
NYT retracted.
In the same spirit of accuracy, Kavanaugh just admitted everything and resigned.
  #115  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
In the same spirit of accuracy, Kavanaugh just admitted everything and resigned.
I think you've got a bright future writing for the NYT
  #116  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:44 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
I'd like to understand HurricaneDitka's conspiracy theory a bit better. Is your view that a dozen Yale grads and other people sat down and decided to fabricate a story about Kavanaugh in order to sink his nomination and that what they went with was something that happened at a high school party with no third party witnesses and the penis slap incident? In that scenario, why wouldn't they have constructed a lie in which they themselves were witnesses if they were prepared to lie about, e.g., what the victim had told them at the time of the incident? Why didn't they do this to Gorsuch or Roberts or Alito?
  #117  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:48 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Impeachment doesn't mean what you think it does:



Calling for impeachment IS calling for an investigation. It's not "execute now trial later", it IS the trial.
Your understanding isn't accurate. What you're suggesting is to charge a person with a crime, then do an investigation.
  #118  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:49 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think you've got a bright future writing for the NYT
Oh, I get it. NYT reporting is Fake News. Funny.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #119  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:53 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Seems to me like we have lots of evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony, which Congress should hear. What other kinds of evidence would you rather wait For? Rape kits?
Not so much as to be “lots” ... possibly there would be with a real investigation ... or not. I suspect strongly yes. Speaking to not just alleged witnesses and victims but those who might have been told of the events at the time by alleged victims and possible witnesses. Also investigation into the process of not fully investigating at the time of the hearing. What we so far have is enough that real investigation should have happened but is not enough to bring to trial on.
  #120  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:56 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Your understanding isn't accurate. What you're suggesting is to charge a person with a crime, then do an investigation.
A. Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal law. It is a process of statecraft.

B. House committees do, in fact, do their own investigations quite routinely, including the HJC when considering impeachment.

Where did you get your understanding from, much less your absolute certainty about it?
  #121  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
I'd like to understand HurricaneDitka's conspiracy theory a bit better. Is your view that a dozen Yale grads and other people sat down and decided to fabricate a story about Kavanaugh in order to sink his nomination and that what they went with was something that happened at a high school party with no third party witnesses and the penis slap incident? In that scenario, why wouldn't they have constructed a lie in which they themselves were witnesses if they were prepared to lie about, e.g., what the victim had told them at the time of the incident? Why didn't they do this to Gorsuch or Roberts or Alito?
First off, I think there's something that needs to be clarified that I thought was obvious to all but apparently is not: Every comment I've made about the alleged incident in this thread has been about the Max Stier "story". Indeed, the thread itself, is about the Max Stier "story". It's the "new sexual assault allegation". The Deborah Ramirez stuff is old news. Given that information, do you wish to rephrase your question (because it appears to have been based on some faulty assumptions - and I'm not just talking about the NYT article now)?
  #122  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:09 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
First off, I think there's something that needs to be clarified that I thought was obvious to all but apparently is not: Every comment I've made about the alleged incident in this thread has been about the Max Stier "story". Indeed, the thread itself, is about the Max Stier "story". It's the "new sexual assault allegation". The Deborah Ramirez stuff is old news. Given that information, do you wish to rephrase your question (because it appears to have been based on some faulty assumptions - and I'm not just talking about the NYT article now)?
Seems like you're avoiding the substance of the issue, and focusing on whether the story was printed using the correct administrative procedures according to New York Times Directive 32, paragraph R, subsection 4932, clauses 1, 7, and 15.
  #123  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:11 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think you've got a bright future writing for the NYT
Fox News pays better and I wouldn't have to put any thought into what I write. It took me like ten whole seconds to come up with the line you quoted -- that kind of heavy lifting isn't needed for the My Pillow News Update viewing audience.
  #124  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Seems like you're avoiding the substance of the issue, and focusing on whether the story was printed using the correct administrative procedures according to New York Times Directive 32, paragraph R, subsection 4932, clauses 1, 7, and 15.
"the substance of the issue"? What substance? The theoretical victim apparently doesn't recall it. The supposed eyewitness doesn't want to talk about it. The source here is two anonymous people who heard about it second- or third-hand, and a couple of NYT writers so desperate to sell their book that they'll leave out key details like, oh, say, that the alleged victim doesn't have any recollection of the event.

This is like Avenatti all over again. There's no "substance" here, just the slow-motion destruction of the NYT's reputation (although, admittedly that's more like whipping a dead horse these days).
  #125  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:20 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,262
I'm wondering if the reluctance of the FBI to conduct an investigation is based on the fact that the evidence is quite dated. Even if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, what are the chances that charges would be brought by a prosecutor, especially when the alleged victim is not willing to corroborate now, let alone bring those charges herself. After all, we saw the outcome when an (alleged) victim did testify during his confirmation hearing.

The issue isn't whether these actions should disqualify Kavanaugh. They absolutely should, IMO. But if he has not been indited, let alone convicted (criminal or civil) of the charges, how do you impeach the guy based only on findings of the court of public opinion.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #126  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:22 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm wondering if the reluctance of the FBI to conduct an investigation is based on the fact that the evidence is quite dated.
Naw, it's just that Individual-1 has ordered them not to.
  #127  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:25 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Naw, it's just that Individual-1 has ordered them not to.
Should I file this under the growing stack of accusations made without supporting evidence?
  #128  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:39 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
You know why not.
  #129  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:51 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
First off, I think there's something that needs to be clarified that I thought was obvious to all but apparently is not: Every comment I've made about the alleged incident in this thread has been about the Max Stier "story". Indeed, the thread itself, is about the Max Stier "story". It's the "new sexual assault allegation". The Deborah Ramirez stuff is old news. Given that information, do you wish to rephrase your question (because it appears to have been based on some faulty assumptions - and I'm not just talking about the NYT article now)?
The information in the NYT article includes this:

Quote:
During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.
Is it your view that the Ramirez allegation is true but the very similar Stier-related one is a liberal conspiracy?
  #130  
Old 09-16-2019, 01:59 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
The information in the NYT article includes this:



Is it your view that the Ramirez allegation is true but the very similar Stier-related one is a liberal conspiracy?
It's my view that calling what Pogrebin and Kelly have done "reporting" is already playing fast and loose with labels. Furthermore, I've never felt that Ramirez' story had enough supporting evidence or sufficiently resolved the doubts surrounding it to label it "true". I feel similarly about this Max Stier story.
  #131  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:04 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"the substance of the issue"? What substance? The theoretical victim apparently doesn't recall it. The supposed eyewitness doesn't want to talk about it. The source here is two anonymous people who heard about it second- or third-hand, and a couple of NYT writers so desperate to sell their book that they'll leave out key details like, oh, say, that the alleged victim doesn't have any recollection of the event.

This is like Avenatti all over again. There's no "substance" here, just the slow-motion destruction of the NYT's reputation (although, admittedly that's more like whipping a dead horse these days).
Is it fair to say that you believe Kavenaugh to be innocent -- not just not guilty, but innocent -- of each sexual assault allegation that has been made?

If that's the case, then would you say that some people -- name your boogeyman -- are fabricating each of these stories out of whole cloth?

And what is your level of confidence in your conclusions here?

ETA: and is it also your view that if a person reports a crime to authorities, that they are obligated to speak to the press about it if they are to maintain their credibility?

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-16-2019 at 02:06 PM.
  #132  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:04 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Your understanding isn't accurate. What you're suggesting is to charge a person with a crime, then do an investigation.
I think there might be some confusion regarding use of terminology. I suspect when a lot of people use the term "impeachment proceedings" or similar phrases, they are talking about initiating a process that may eventually lead to impeachment. Unless that process begins, there will be no thorough investigation.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #133  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:04 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Furthermore, I've never felt that Ramirez' story had enough supporting evidence or sufficiently resolved the doubts surrounding it to label it "true". I feel similarly about this Max Stier story.
Ok. But I'm asking a more specific question. Of the seven people who are reported to
have heard of the incident long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge, how many are:

(a) Not actually saying that but are instead being misrepresented by the journalists;
(b) Lying;
(c) Sincere but mistaken.

I took it that your view was that some or all were (a) or (b). That strikes me as wildly implausible, so I wanted to hear more about how you got there. If instead you're just saying (c), that strikes me as more plausible (though not especially plausible) but also not the kind of basis on which to say the kinds of things you've said in this thread.
  #134  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Is it fair to say that you believe Kavenaugh to be innocent -- not just not guilty, but innocent -- of each sexual assault allegation that has been made? ...
No, I believe there are significant reasons for doubt with each sexual assault allegation, but I'd stop short of saying that I know for a fact that he is innocent of all of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... ETA: and is it also your view that if a person reports a crime to authorities, that they are obligated to speak to the press about it if they are to maintain their credibility?
I think it's difficult to "maintain" something that was never established in the first place. AIUI, he didn't "report a crime to authorities", at least not to the ones with jurisdiction to prosecute it. If the "reporting" is to be believed (and there's significant doubt about that too), he "notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account". If he was more forthcoming than the NYT was with the fact that the woman didn't recall it, I'm not surprised that they did not expend more resources on it in the compressed timeframe they had.
  #135  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:25 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Ok. But I'm asking a more specific question. Of the seven people who are reported to
have heard of the incident long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge, how many are:

(a) Not actually saying that but are instead being misrepresented by the journalists;
(b) Lying;
(c) Sincere but mistaken.

I took it that your view was that some or all were (a) or (b). That strikes me as wildly implausible, so I wanted to hear more about how you got there. If instead you're just saying (c), that strikes me as more plausible (though not especially plausible) but also not the kind of basis on which to say the kinds of things you've said in this thread.
I'm dubious about the report that seven people heard of the incident long before. What are their names, and what precisely are they willing to testify / declare publicly that they heard? When did they hear it and from whom? For example, one of the hearsay sources the NYT article cites is Ramirez' mother. Over here, I read:

Quote:
... Ramirez’s mother, who says she was told “something happened” — that’s the actual quote — at Yale.
"Something happened" is so far from corroboration that Brett Kavanaugh thrust his dick at Ramirez that it's almost laughable. Should I be able to tell my wife "something happened" today and decades from now use that as corroboration that person X did Y to me? Are the other hearsay sources similarly vague? I have no reason to believe they're any more specific about what they heard at this point, especially given the NYT track record on this matter.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-16-2019 at 02:28 PM.
  #136  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:46 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, I believe there are significant reasons for doubt with each sexual assault allegation, but I'd stop short of saying that I know for a fact that he is innocent of all of them.

I think it's difficult to "maintain" something that was never established in the first place. AIUI, he didn't "report a crime to authorities", at least not to the ones with jurisdiction to prosecute it. If the "reporting" is to be believed (and there's significant doubt about that too), he "notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account". If he was more forthcoming than the NYT was with the fact that the woman didn't recall it, I'm not surprised that they did not expend more resources on it in the compressed timeframe they had.
Hey, can you tell me where you get those knives that slice so finely? I mean, splitting hairs is one thing, but now we are ablating microns with such unbelievable precision.
  #137  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:52 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,855
It was pretty clear at the time that the FBI investigation was single-buttocked. If this was intentional, that should be looked at as well.
  #138  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:00 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm dubious about the report that seven people heard of the incident long before. What are their names, and what precisely are they willing to testify / declare publicly that they heard? When did they hear it and from whom? For example, one of the hearsay sources the NYT article cites is Ramirez' mother. Over here, I read:



"Something happened" is so far from corroboration that Brett Kavanaugh thrust his dick at Ramirez that it's almost laughable. Should I be able to tell my wife "something happened" today and decades from now use that as corroboration that person X did Y to me? Are the other hearsay sources similarly vague? I have no reason to believe they're any more specific about what they heard at this point, especially given the NYT track record on this matter.
Let's not be intentionally dismissive of the much more likely scenario. If your boss stuck his crotch in your face, you might mention it to your friends over drinks. They might, in due time, mention it in front your mom in a circuitous way while they are over for a visit with you (assuming a long familiar relationship with her). Your mom might not question you closely because a) she's not stupid and b) she frankly doesn't want to hear the ugly details. Years later, if asked, she would say "something happened". (Arguably, your wife is a bad example because she would want to know more, in detail, because she's your wife and not your mom.)
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #139  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Let's not be intentionally dismissive of the much more likely scenario. If your boss stuck his crotch in your face, you might mention it to your friends over drinks. They might, in due time, mention it in front your mom in a circuitous way while they are over for a visit with you (assuming a long familiar relationship with her). Your mom might not question you closely because a) she's not stupid and b) she frankly doesn't want to hear the ugly details. Years later, if asked, she would say "something happened". (Arguably, your wife is a bad example because she would want to know more, in detail, because she's your wife and not your mom.)
A complete and thorough investigation might answer questions like this. It's not hard to imagine the motivation of those who acted to prevent such a thorough and complete investigation. It is kind of hard (or maybe impossible) to imagine motivations that are anything besides morally bankrupt.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #140  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I think there might be some confusion regarding use of terminology. I suspect when a lot of people use the term "impeachment proceedings" or similar phrases, they are talking about initiating a process that may eventually lead to impeachment. Unless that process begins, there will be no thorough investigation.
Do you think that Warren or Harris are using the term in that manner or knowledgeable enough to be using the word correctly?
  #141  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:13 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Do you think that Warren or Harris are using the term in that manner or knowledgeable enough to be using the word correctly?
This question is full of fallacies.

The more informal meaning is not "incorrect."

A person wouldn't have to be "not knowledgeable" to use the informal meaning.

Either of them may use either or both meanings depending on the context.

You'd have to offer me solid evidence for me to buy that either is implying that they wish to skip the entire process and just jump right into an impeachment vote.

Last edited by Acsenray; 09-16-2019 at 03:17 PM.
  #142  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Let's not be intentionally dismissive of the much more likely scenario. If your boss stuck his crotch in your face, you might mention it to your friends over drinks. They might, in due time, mention it in front your mom in a circuitous way while they are over for a visit with you (assuming a long familiar relationship with her). Your mom might not question you closely because a) she's not stupid and b) she frankly doesn't want to hear the ugly details. Years later, if asked, she would say "something happened". (Arguably, your wife is a bad example because she would want to know more, in detail, because she's your wife and not your mom.)
Which is all well and good (I have no difficulty imagining a mother hesitant to pry too deep into the private life of her daughter), but she sure as hell doesn't count as any sort of corroborating witness if she didn't hear anything more than a circuitous allusion to "something happened". If she didn't hear the name Brett Kavanaugh or the details of the incident, as nice a lady as she might be, her usefulness for corroborating her daughter's story is essentially zero.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-16-2019 at 03:20 PM.
  #143  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
This question is full of fallacies. ...
So cutting through the crap you think they are saying he should be impeached to mean he should be investigated to see if there are grounds for impeachment?

I don’t.
  #144  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:44 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,967
nm
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 09-16-2019 at 03:44 PM.
  #145  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:47 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So cutting through the crap you think they are saying he should be impeached to mean he should be investigated to see if there are grounds for impeachment?

I don’t.
They may be saying that they personally believe that the process will result in impeachment. I do not believe they are saying that everyone should just skip ahead to that part. And I don't believe that you believe that either.
  #146  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:52 PM
Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 17,828
For fuck’s sake. Can’t republicans find nominees who will deregulate environmental laws and pass money up to the one percent who are NOT serial sexual abusers? There must be a few of them out there.
__________________
Uke
  #147  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:07 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
I was wondering when you’d show up on the bandwagon!

Let's keep personal shots unrelated to the genuine discussion out of this thread.

[ /Moderating ]
  #148  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:44 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which is all well and good (I have no difficulty imagining a mother hesitant to pry too deep into the private life of her daughter), but she sure as hell doesn't count as any sort of corroborating witness if she didn't hear anything more than a circuitous allusion to "something happened". If she didn't hear the name Brett Kavanaugh or the details of the incident, as nice a lady as she might be, her usefulness for corroborating her daughter's story is essentially zero.
As iiandyiiii has already suggested, a more thorough inquiry by the FBI, for example, would help separate evidence from hearsay. But that hasn't happened so far, and likely won't under the current administration.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #149  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:12 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Let's not be intentionally dismissive of the much more likely scenario. If your boss stuck his crotch in your face, you might mention it to your friends over drinks. They might, in due time, mention it in front your mom in a circuitous way while they are over for a visit with you (assuming a long familiar relationship with her). Your mom might not question you closely because a) she's not stupid and b) she frankly doesn't want to hear the ugly details. Years later, if asked, she would say "something happened". (Arguably, your wife is a bad example because she would want to know more, in detail, because she's your wife and not your mom.)
How about if you 'heard' that a co-worker had his bosses' dick thrust in his face, and a couple of other co-workers also 'heard' it? Every group of people has gossip - high school kids more than anyone, probably.

I'm guessing that if you had passed along that gossip, then someone came to you and said, "Will you testify in court?", you'd suddenly get very quiet. Because while the story has always been 'out there', you actually have no idea if it's true or not, and you have no business saying it was when it actually matters and isn't just gossip. That's probably where Stier is right now. And the fact that the supposed victim can't remember it happening at all is about the biggest red flag you could possibly see.

Do you remember the 'satanist day care' scare? Some people 'heard' things, and a couple of children, when prodded by adults, said that maybe something had happened. The result was a minor national panic, with people coming out of the woodwork with stories of satanist cults running daycares and strange rituals. None of it was true.

There's a reason we don't use hearsay in court, and why we have a statute of limitations. Thirty five year old memories are not reliable, especially when the 'victims' like Mrs Ramirez need six days of counselling by lawyers and activists before 'maybe remembering' that it 'might' have been Kavanaugh.

The Times is guilty of yellow journalism. Publishing a story based on hearsay, while neglecting known facts that cast doubt on your story, is a classic example of yellow journalism. If Congress impeached Kavanaugh based on hearsay, it would open the flood gates for impeachment hearings against anyone the current power brokers in Washington didn't like. It would be a very dangerous precedent, and in the future more likely to be employed against Democrats.

I can remember when many of us were warning that Harry Reid's killing of the filibuster for judicial appointments was a horrible precedent to set. We were shouted down because it was useful to the left at the time.

Well, now Trump is setting records for judicial appointments to the lower courts, and he's put two Supreme Court justices on the bench and there's a chance he'll get a third.

But by all means, let's lower the bar on impeachment because it might be slightly useful to do so today. What could go wrong?
  #150  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:45 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I can remember when many of us were warning that Harry Reid's killing of the filibuster for judicial appointments was a horrible precedent to set. We were shouted down because it was useful to the left at the time.

Well, now Trump is setting records for judicial appointments to the lower courts, and he's put two Supreme Court justices on the bench and there's a chance he'll get a third.
Damned if I know how it works any better for the Dems in the alternate universe where Reid doesn't kill the lower-court judicial filibuster. There'd be a shit-ton more judicial vacancies on January 20, 2017 in the alternate universe than there were in this one, and a shit-ton fewer Obama nominees on those lower courts. So Trump would get to fill all of those, instead of just some of them.

And when Trump nominated Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and the Dems filibustered, you think Mitch wouldn't have killed the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees anyway?

You remember when the Dems filibustered ten of Bush's first couple hundred lower court nominees, and the GOP was ready to kill the judicial filibuster over that? You really think Mitch would have said, OK, you win, no Gorsuch then?

The only difference in the alternate universe is that Trump would get to fill the seats he filled, and the ones Obama filled during his second term. Send me back in time to 2013, and I'd tell Harry Reid to do the same thing all over again.
Reply

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 09:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017