Context matters and you’re choosing the remove context that, you know, matters.
Yes, it does. All of these things “call her credibility into question”:
- not knowing the year the incident happened
- not knowing the location of the party
- not knowing how many people were there
- not knowing how she got there
- not knowing how she got home
etc.
None of these things, taken alone or together, prove definitively that she’s mistaken / lying, but it would be better for her, and her claim would be stronger, if she was clear on these details.
It’s because his posts show both zero understanding of sexual assault and rape and show the valuation of partisan political concerns far, far above stopping sexual assault and rape. An actual serious discussion of Cory Booker’s college article (in another thread, presumably) could be a great start for a very informative and deep discussion of sexual assault and rape in society and culture, something this country (and this board, perhaps) desperately needs. That poster has no interest in such a discussion, of course, as his posts have shown for the last year or two.
Why shouldn’t it be a disqualifier, if we’re talking about selecting someone for the highest court of the land? Underage drinking is an illegal activity, and not a minor one. There is no reason we should treat underage drinking any differently than any illicit drug use when assessing a judge’s history with following the law.
But in truth, I do draw distinction between mere drinking and flagrant alcohol abuse—of the kind conducive to other crimes such as DUI, disorderly conduct, and yes, sexual offenses. If evidence points to a young Kavanaugh regularly abusing alcohol, not only should we see this as evidence that he grew up disregarding laws specific to juvenile drinking; the reckless excessiveness of his behavior suggests we should also question his regard for other laws. It’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt in the presence of Ford’s allegation; that’s problematic for a judge.
Kavanaugh’s best bet is to be honest about his drinking history, but it will be difficult for him to do so without admitting to black outs that undermine his own credibility as a historian. So I’m guessing he will probably lie or obfuscate about it, despite the evidence that is out there, which will also undermine his credibility to the public. It’s a Catch 22 he is in.
I provided a link where you can read all about the context, at least to the extent that Spartacus provided it. I’m not going to quote the entire article here for you. I’m going to quote the relevant bits and provide a link to the rest of it. I didn’t quote the rest of Trump’s “Access Hollywood” transcript either. I only quoted the bits that I thought were relevant to the discussion about sexual assault.
I’m not saying you’re lying about any of this, but you’ve posted cites in this thread that are just one step above “Sources say Ford is a lizard person!”, so I wonder if you can cite all of these claims from reliable sources.
You read to that sentence and stopped. Because you believed it. What if donald trump had said it?
For me, the first thing I think is that there is a problem, with it. That sentence says there might be, but that it isn’t documented, yet. That is why that article gets published.
do people think going after Booker is going to do anything? I don’t see him quitting his office or not voting on this issue. But hey knock yourself out and have fun with it.
Choosing to omit key contextual details is altering the story. And I’m sure Cory Booker’s old friend would be flattered to know that you think she was sexually assaulted.
Hopefully it will start a real and significant discussion on sexual assault and rape in our culture and society. I doubt it will happen like that, but that article would be a good starting point.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on TV just now asserted that there will be a full and thorough investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh, under this or a later Congress, whether or not he is confirmed to the SCOTUS.
No, that’s not why I stopped. I stopped because the article buried the lede, as it were, starting off with implying Kavanaugh hired female clerks based in part on their “model looks” and only later added the “gem” I quoted. Since Rick Kitchen didn’t make any actual point, I thought it a waste of time to continue reading until asking him if he had one.
How many officials have their drinking history come up in an allegation of sexual assault perpetrated by drunk individuals? I don’t think there’s a plethora but maybe I’m wrong.
Nothing false about it. I clearly discussed criminal investigations. The FBI does conduct background checks. They have conducted background checks on Kavanaugh six times.
But the FBI does not conduct criminal investigations of state crimes. They need to have jurisdiction, be invited in by local/state authorities, or a narrow special exemption must apply (e.g. 28 U.S.C. § 540 gives FBI authority to investigate murder of state law enforcement officers, 28 U.S.C. § 540A0 crimes against interstate travelers, or 28 U.S.C. §540B cases of suspected serial killers). The narrow exceptions do not apply to the matter Ford alleges.
I’ve been the person answering that initial call from a person reporting sexual assault. And the matter gets referred to the appropriate authorities according to the rules of jurisdiction. If it took place on federal property or was committed against a federal employee in the course of his/her duties then it gets sent to the feds. If it took place in a private residence, it’s local or state authorities.
It would be nice if people, regardless of political affiliation, understood the role of various law enforcement agencies. I’ve had callers get quite upset and file complaints when their complaint was referred to a law enforcement agency other than their preferred one. And those complaints went nowhere as the information was routed to the proper agency.
If Ford wishes to make a criminal complaint she must make that complaint to the state/local authorities. If Ford wants the Senate to hear what she has to say then she needs to provide that information to the Senate Judiciary committee. But if Ford only wants to provide information to the FBI about Kavanaugh’s background she can call or write to the FBI. Sending a letter to your Congresswoman and asking for anonymity is not the way to do it.
Just to be sure this isn’t partisanship talking: explain the impact Trump’s lawyer changing his story has on Trump’s credibility.
Also, the word “clarification” is different to the word “change”. I would say they have roughly opposite meanings. You seem to be using the two interchangeably, which might explain some of your confusion.
You seem to be repeating the same error that Richard Parker corrected, while quoting the post where he corrected your error.
If he’s not confirmed to SCOTUS, I strongly suspect Senator Whitehouse won’t give it a second thought.
Kavanaugh’ll still be a federal judge, so I suspect you’re wrong.
“cites”? Which “cites” (plural) are you talking about? I recall one, which I preceded with plenty of disclaimers about it’s accuracy. Is there a second or third you were thinking of?
and if he is confirmed does he think he can get 67 senate votes to impeach and remove him from the SC? (assuming they find out bad things about him)