For some reason I had the idea he was ex law enforcement. I don’t expect naivete of such a person, but that’s my bias I guess.
Never met any of those kinds of people ever either? Is this Barney Fife? See, this is not good for democracy right here.
In a new Washington Post article, several of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates express disagreement with the “choir boy” image that they felt Kavanaugh tried to portray in the Fox News interview:
The article does also include quotes from a high school classmate, and a college classmate (basketball player Chris Dudley), indicating that they drank with Kavanaugh, but never saw him out of control or blacking out.
The answer to your question is in post #3400
Now, about your last sentence: do you mean that me not being an alcoholic is “not good for democracy”?
Keep the merits of this thing aside, I had to laugh, since this would be soundbyte number 2 from Biden’s past which the GOP would use in a judicial nomination.
(As an aside the two judicial nominees against whom the “Biden Rule” was actually used before Garland, ended up on the SCOTUS. Guess which ones).
I’ve heard some people define blacking out as “not remembering events after a certain amount of drinking”. I’ve heard others define it as “passing out after drinking”. But neither one of those necessarily occurs with binge drinking. One could binge drink an amount that doesn’t cause blackout drinking.
The TV just reported that Ford will present sworn statements from an additional four friends of hers that she told about the attempted rape over the last several years.
As Judge Garland will attest, this delay is nothing and is infinitely morally superior to the Republican strategy of obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.
Republicans know that this is their last chance to put in a Neanderthal on the Supreme Court. Evidently they figure that never controlling the Senate again is a price worth paying to get him on the Court.
And the “female assistant” (Mitch McConnell’s words) who will question Ford is apparently a hyper-fundie prosecutor from Maricopa County, AZ named Rachel Mitchell.
The content of the interview isn’t particularly controversial. It’s just that it’s not the sort of publication you’d be interviewed by unless you were well into that world.
Fucking clown show, this is.
This is guilt by association. There are many ways she could have come to be interviewed by them, and as you say the interview is fine (if anything it shows she is reasonable and informed).
I understand the criticisms, but I still think having her do the questioning is good on net.
More about this:
“Three of professor Christine Blasey Ford’s friends and her husband have given her attorneys detailed letters describing the date, time, place and context of conversations they had with her when she told them about her alleged sexual assault at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.”
The timing ranges from 2013 to 2017.
31-35 years later. And hearsay for truth to boot.
Not about proof, not about guilt or innocence. Its doubt. And doubt gets magnified by the importance of the decision. And that’s not a question of justice.
You’re gonna hire a babysitter to guard the only possessions that matter. You have a candidate, but some worrisome rumors are attached. Do you sit down and think, well, there’s no real evidence here, no fingerprints, DNA, eight by ten color glossies. Can’t really prove it! So, sure, I’ll take a chance…
Like Hell you will.
Publications like that aren’t looking to interview mainstream experts; they’re looking to interview people that have the same worldview.
Agreed. At the very minimum, you would slow the decision making process down to thoroughly investigate the matter before making such an important decision, but the Republicans are doing the opposite, speeding the process up before we find out more.
Whatever. The guy’s a liar. He lied about Trump when he was introduced; he lied about his hard-drinking days in his Fox interview; he’s surely lied about the Manny Miranda hacking; it sure looks like he lied about a raft of stuff during the Bush years.
Since the lying about his HS/college drinking was just this week, the 31-35 years is so-what.
But 1-4 years before now, which suggests that she’s not making up the story as a result of this nomination.
He is only mentioned by name in one of them; after his name was mentioned.
Last I heard, the schedule seemed to be:
- Hold a committee vote Friday morning (lots of time there to assimilate and discuss Thursday’s testimony before voting!)
- Debate on the Senate floor over the weekend, then vote.
At this point, I think it’s both a rush before any more shoes drop, and a rush to get Kavanaugh into that SCOTUS photo op on Monday.
Yeah - I guess this suggests why I am not more worked up by this than I am. In my book, the charges against Clarence were far more significant and better supported - yet he’s been making bad decisions for some time now…
Add in that the Dems screwed things up by losing the election. I’ve long held that, even if you can’t convince yourself of any other reason to vote, the Supremes is an unavoidable issue. So the people to blame for Kavanaugh are anyone who voted for Trump, anyone who voted Green, and anyone who didn’t vote. To a large (not unrestricted) extent, the winner gets to name Supremes.
Interesting, how quickly the goalposts move, tho, isn’t it? Almost quaint to think how recently a couple of tokes would disqualify someone…
A quote upthread distinguished between blackouts and memory lapses. Haven’t drunk in the past 15 years, but am mildly curious as to what the difference is.