Yes, anything is possible. It requires a 2/3 supermajority to remove someone, as you might recall from Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
Let me summarize:
a) not one shred of evidence of what is actually in Ford’s Holton-Arms yearbooks
c) exactly ONE named source, someone named Jay Martin, who offers up this gem:
b) Ford was a “party girl”, so why even listen to what she has to say?
Why is it that whenever I see a statistic concerning what Americans believe, I become less and less proud to be an American. Where did you see this?
Are these not “named sources” in your mind:
Again… much of the article is about photos that Ford isn’t in. How do you feel about guilt by association?
“Intersting”, why? We know from Ford’s own testimony that she and Kavanaugh both attended parties where kids drank too much. On that point she’s certainly been more forthcoming than Kavanaugh, who tried to portray himself as someone who was more focused on Church and service than partying.
And really, you’re going to give credence to whatever insulting nickname the boys gave her? Even given the whole “Renata Alumnus” thing, where Kavanaugh and his buddies all implied in their yearbook that they’d had sex with another girl? We know that was a lie, unless Kavanaugh is lying now about having been a virgin at the time.
In any case, how often she drank or whether she was sexually active is irrelevant – those things don’t somehow make attempted rape OK.
Also note that if there’s one fact that she and Kavanaugh agree on, it’s that she didn’t try to have sex with him. He says he was never at the party, and she says he tried to rape her. No one is saying she tried to have sex with him. So why on earth would you bring in a claim about sexual promiscuity… if not to try to make the odious argument that “she’s a slut, so she deserved it”?
Pretty much what I said before: “This does not prove or disprove Ford’s allegations…”
Not a Republican, and would rather not see a fundamentalist anti-abortion nutcase on your supreme court. But having committed a misdemeanor 35 years ago should not be disqualifying. His views should be, but hey, you elected these people, and get what you want.
However, lying about it now would be. But there’s no reason to believe he’s lying, and good reason to believe the accusation is false.
I was talking about human sources obviously, but fine.
I am merely lamenting the fact that it would be nice to actually see the yearbooks. I understand that that may yet happen.
ETA: Not that anything as described in the article would matter.
Senator Hirono aked a very stupid question.:smack:
I feel like you had a stronger position on guilt by association earlier in this thread.
Now it’s interesting background information. Check.
Be more specific please. I’m watching on a time lag.
Why do you stipulate trial when (for the upteenth time) this is not a trial?
Anyway, here’s Kavanaugh’s ruling in the court case monstro cited:
It amuses me that he mentions background investigations as an activity well served by polygraphs. So he certainly should willingly submit to one for himself, right?
I don’t know what you mean by “give credence” to it, but you seem confused on this point. The nickname didn’t come from the boys. The article said:
She went to an all-girls school. All of her “classmates” were female.
As you noted, of course, “those things don’t somehow make attempted rape OK” and I wasn’t even remotely attempting to argue that they do. It was, I thought, another peek into this rather elite social circle and the culture of the time.
[deleted, just saw new reply]
To restate what should be obvious, I’m not claiming Ford is “guilty” of anything based on who her associates were or how they behaved. I’m not even saying she is guilty of anything based on how she behaved. Some of the gaps in her memory may be explained by alcohol-induced blackouts, but there are other more innocent possible explanations too.
I hope Kavanaugh doesn’t benefit as much as I think he might from the recency effect.
I suspect that concern is why Ford’s lawyers kept insisting she go last.
I don’t believe you actually know that for a fact. Yes, she went to an all girls school and Kavanaugh went to a boys school, but obviously the two groups attended social events together. It’s at least as plausible that whatever nickname originated from the boasts of the boys.
But again, why does it matter?
You’re basically floating the idea “maybe the alleged rape victim was a slut”. Do you honestly not see anything wrong with that?
Edit: Alleged victim of attempted rape – but the point stands.
… but I’m just sayin’…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk