I agree. She’s done now and it was fair questioning. Can’t spin that.
However, the R-Senators will spin the testimony. None of it will be about the assault - no Senator will opine on whether they believe Ford’s testimony. They will all opine on corroboration, on missing details, and the political part of it. None of that though is relevant to whether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford or not. You can still have an opinion on whether you believe her when she says Kavanaugh assaulted her.
Lindsey Graham should remember that we do our own weeding-out on that basis. Ask Al Franken. Ask Eric Schneiderman.
If he’s thinking that we had hired women to pretend to have been sexual assault victims, he should have insisted on FBI investigations, which would have almost surely caught them out. Worthless git.
True, I don’t actually know for certain what the source of the nickname was. I have a piece of evidence that it was used by her female classmates and no evidence it was used by her male acquaintances at other schools, but it is within the realm of possibility that it originated elsewhere and spread back to Holton-Arms.
I now regret that I included that snippet. I was trying to extract the bits of the article that seemed particularly relevant to Ford and the discussion we’ve been having, and was originally going to ask if anyone knew what the nickname was. Upon brief reflection I decided against that (asking that question), but didn’t think to remove the snippet about her nickname before posting.
Let’s see…
He provides a list of applications that are well-served by polygraphs. Among them is establishing the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants in the context of law enforcement. It is very reasonable to surmise from this that Kav has no problem with polygraph results being used in court cases, either civil or criminal.
But as already been pointed out to you, we are not talking about a trial. We are talking about something much more akin to a job interview. If Kav doesn’t have a problem with the government subjecting innocent folks to the evil polygraph machine to get an entry-level job at the CIA, why should he have a problem with subjecting himself to the same scrutiny for a lifetime appointment to one the most powerful positions in the world?
Sure seems like an experienced political hack skilled in the art of lying and semantic quibbling should have no problem fooling a polygraph…at least compared to a college professor. So it is jarring that the latter didn’t hesitate to take the test, while the guy who is on record giving them the thumbs-up isn’t rushing to take one.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I wonder what that was about. I wonder what he said.
Anyone else notice an interesting theme running through the various R vs. D commentaries currently being heard on the news? Republicans want to characterize this as Kavanaugh being judged in a criminal trial, with the presumption of innocence being primary. Dems characterize it as a job interview, where a systemic pattern of major character flaws should be disqualifying in favor of less tainted candidates. As Jeff Toobin put it, if you were hiring a baby sitter, would you hire someone with three separate credible but unproven allegations of child abuse? I sure as hell wouldn’t, but I guess Republicans view their Supreme Court nominees with rather narrow partisan objectives.
Maybe it is a job interview, but a job interview where criminal allegations have been made, not something like productivity issues or how they work with others. When you bring up the words “gang rape” you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say “oh this is just a job interview, screw presumption of innocence, she’s telling the truth, he’s guilty.” The implications of that are enormous. IF he did these things, not only should he not be on the SCOTUS, he should lose his job, and be in jail if at all possible.
I have already said I think there needs to be an investigation as soon as there was a second accuser. But I do want to see witness corroboration from any other person to these accusers. That’s something we have not seen.
Yikes. He’s coming off bad already!
And what if the investigation is inconclusive, as it almost certainly would be? Do you think we should just shrug our shoulders and say “Oh well, there’s not enough evidence to convict him of a felony, so that means there’s no reason to keep him off the Supreme Court?”
Not off to a good start Bert.
Oh, merciful Jesus, yes! Maybe he could snarl and yell more! :rolleyes:
What’s going on? Is he doing tequila shots?
“What comes around goes around”? Really Bert?
He really does sound like if he is telling all that disaster and pestilence will come if he is **not **selected.
OMG. Cue the fake tears.
He’s certainly come out with a lot more passion today.
Can’t imagine this tantrum is impressing Senators Collins or Murkowski.
I will be honest. If the position we were talking about was dog catcher, I wouldn’t care all that much about the guy’s character and morals. The dog catcher nominee once attacked a girl 36 years ago? Ok, that is awful. But I don’t see how his past informs his ability to be a fair and judicious dog-catcher. I am sure the dogs don’t care one way or the other.
But I really don’t want a guy who is an attempted rapist to be the deciding vote on whether I can get an abortion or whether I have unrestrained access to birth control. I would hate for anyone to have that kind of control, but I would really hate for it to be someone with such a sordid past. Hell yes, it is about perceptions. Politics are all about perceptions.
We are told that only honorable people get to be on the SC. Truly honorable people don’t have the kind of baggage that Kav has. If we want to preserve the sanctity of the institution, we gotta have screen these nominees with a rubric broader than “Are you a good lawyer?” A lifetime appointment necessitates that kind of scrutiny.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Readily admit I’m biased against him. And I have considerable concerns about how this process has gone. But as a judge myself - can’t say I’m terribly impressed by this opening statement.
Explain to me how his family has been “destroyed” (repeated several times.) Harmed, sure. But destroyed?
The emotion, word choice - sure doesn’t impress me as “judicial temperament.” I suppose a decision could have been made to go emotional, to avoid being called cold.
Do you consider yourself a good judge of what impresses the Senators?