UltraVires, I realize you could have been talking about the things senators said before the hearing, about him being a drunk, sexually assaulting people, or being involved in gang rape, but I can’t find anything like that either. Do you have examples?
Then she might as well just do the right thing.
jk lol
My primary profession required an FBI background check. All of my jobs have standards for my conduct and character that are described in state law or national certification standards. I had to file attestations about these to receive my license, and again at every renewal. Same for my other professional certifications. My license has a “moral turpitude” clause that can be used by my licensing authority to suspend or terminate my license at will. Current excessive drinking, or substantiated allegations of harming or having harmed other people would do it, but it needn’t be even that severe or clear. I have nowhere near the power of a SCOTUS judge, and certainly no guarantee of lifetime employment, yet I as a working yutz am held to high ethical and legal standards. One ethical standard I’m held to can be paraphrased as “You’re in violation if you make the profession look bad, because this erodes public confidence in the services we regulate/conduct, and therefore decreases the number of people whom we could benefit but who will not ask for services out of fear or mistrust.”
When one makes a claim that includes detail X, and detail X can be confirmed by an outside source, then detail X has been corroborated. That’s what corroborated means.
A lot of what Kavanaugh said was right out the Great Book of Rationalizations for Alcoholics. “I just had a few beers!” “I didn’t pass out, I just fell asleep!” FWIW, I have a bit of a drinking problem, and these are lies I tell myself. And, also FWIW, my brother was an active, stereotypical alcoholic for many years, and all he ever drank was beer. One day I was sitting at a table with him, and I was drinking a neat scotch. My brother said, “Hell, I’m an alcoholic, and I can’t even drink that stuff.”
Cheeseless tunnel.
Do you realize how ironic it is to complain about a personal attack, and then throw in one of your own in the very next words?
You are absurdly wrong about whether a court would admit evidence that Kavanaugh has gotten blackout drunk in a trial in which he affirmatively testifies that he has never gotten blackout drunk as part of his defense to the charges.
You know this, Ultravires. You practice criminal law.
First, we don’t know that Kavanaugh lied about never blacking out. It is very possible that he did lie about it. I’m sure the FBI can find a couple of people who remember from 30 years ago who said that Kavanaugh told them that he didn’t remember what happened the night before. Then we have to decide if they are lying.
Second, the term “black out” is so vague that unless the last thing you remember was taking a sip of beer and the next thing you remember is waking up in a different state with a strange woman, then anyone can plausibly say that they did not black out. Nobody has a camera perfect memory and people forget details even when they are sober.
Finally, I am aware of how alcohol impacts people. It loosens inhibitions and causes you to do things that you would otherwise like to do, but that your normal good judgment stops you from doing. As a heterosexual man, I would not get so drunk as to sleep with a guy, for example. Likewise, I would not get so drunk that I would open fire in a mall and kill innocent people. Alcohol does not turn someone into a different person in that respect.
And most importantly, I enjoy sex because of the mutual sense of satisfaction and love that each party feels. I have no desire to force it on someone without their consent, or indeed without their full desire to participate. So, if you asked me if during a black out period if I ever sexually assaulted someone, I could answer with absolute confidence that I did not, because I have no secret desire to do that which only my sober good judgment prohibits.
Is Kavanaugh in that same category? I have no idea. But the simple fact that he blacked out, or did not black out, or whatever, does not add nor detract from Ford’s story.
If we determine it’s a fact that he blacked out, then that says a lot about Kavanaugh’s character and credibility – it means he lied under oath. And isn’t it reasonable to believe that someone who voluntarily lied under oath doesn’t meet the high standard we should hold for the SCOTUS?
Yes, if he testified, then he “opened the door” to the evidence. However, no judge that I have ever practiced in front of would allow the question, “Have you ever blacked out while drinking?” by the prosecution.*
*We are assuming that Kavanaugh is standing trial on a criminal accusation of his alleged sexual assault against Ford.
Yeah, I was thinking that, too. Again, a deliberate move that I didn’t think was a particularly good one.
The other thing that surprises me about all the stories we’re hearing is that there hasn’t been any mention of cocaine. Rich kids in the 1980s and there was no cocaine?
I’m trying not to project my own experience onto him, but I did attend an all-boys Catholic school my Sophomore year in high school. It wasn’t a prep school, but the rowdy, sexist behavior was beyond what I experienced in my public school years. I also know about a dozen guys* in my social circle who did go to a school very much like Georgetown Prep, and who are within a year or two of Kavanaugh’s age. They are all upstanding members of the community, most with wives and children. But they are hard partiers and the stories they tell of their high school years at that school are pretty wild. They definitely compartmentalize their behavior between the everyday world of work, family, even church and the times when it’s a guys’ weekend or such.
Now, having said that, I know some of the wives, too, and they are not shrinking violets. They like to party, too, and aren’t just sitting home darning socks while the guys are off on their own.
Anyway, I can’t say it’s been proven, but I find it very believable that he was a heavy drinker in high school, a sloppy drunk in college, and probably blacked out on a number of occasions, including the fishing trip where the dice game was played. It wouldn’t be at all unusual for someone of his background.
*Just to be clear, I did not know these guys in high school. They’re all about 10 years younger than me, and I didn’t even go to high school where I live now.
Read the second paragraph of my response. The term “blacked out” is so vague that it can be denied pretty accurately. However, I thought we were investigating sexual assault? Now, it seems the investigation is to be about any and every bad thing Kavanaugh may possibly have done 30 years ago.
What I said was about what Kavanaugh did 2 days ago. He didn’t have to deny ever blacking out, if he has in fact blacked out. But he chose to, just two days ago. If he’s lying, it’s not reasonable to me to disregard a lie under oath from a potential SCOTUS justice. That the question was relating to a 36 year old allegation does not minimize the seriousness of lying under oath just 2 days ago.
Ok. But in this analogy, it was Kavanaugh who opened that door.
He made that claim to Fox News because otherwise he could not as credibly deny Ford’s account.
That made it totally fair game for the Senate Democrats, even if Kav was entitled to the level of protection we give a criminal defendant.
What he did 30 years ago speaks to his character today and his fitness for the job.
Mr. Mace, you’ve been pretty fair in this thread, but I am scratching my head with this one. It seems as if you are saying that because he admits that he likes to drink beer, then it is clear he loves liquor and cocaine as well. Please explain.
Or, an email from a few yers ago where he appologizes for something he can’t remeber.
It’s not vague, not at all. It is very specific. It is when your memory stops recording. You are still conscious, still making decisions, and you may not even seem to be totally wasted to the people around you. But you do not remember it. That’s the definition. Not vague at all.
I’ve met people who are peaceful as all get out, but get them drunk, and they turn violent. That could just be their inner personality coming out because they had lowered their inhibitions, but it is a dramatic change to how they act while they are sober.
In your HS year book, did you brag about being an “alumni” of a girl who?
You are correct, in a way. It doesn’t matter to Ford’s story whether he was blackout drunk or just regular drunk. It does matter to his story, however, as on the one hand, he doesn’t remember, and is only lying about the drinking, and on the other, he does remember, and is lying both about the drinking and the sexual assault.
We do know this.
Multiple sources, including Kavanuagh himself, have confirmed a history of heavy binge drinking. Incidents spanning at least a decade: high school, undergrad, law school, and beyond.
People with this history of binge drinking experience black outs. Often. All of them. This has been cited.
On top of that we have at least three pieces of evidence where Kavanaugh’s own words reference black outs.
To be fair, it doesn’t have to.
If what Ford says is entirely true, then I could still see Brett as a respectable character in politics, if he , at the time of the events, admitted his actions and took responsibility. Even if it were some years later, when he is graduating from college, and looks back and realizes the evil he has done, he can repent of it then, even.
For instance, I have a certain respect for Derek Black, even though what he has in his past is beyond reprehensible. But he has admitted to that, and tried to make amends, and I can see no reason to hold his past views against him now that he has truly repented and attempted to atone. (You can only attempt to atone for sins, you can never succeed.)
It is that Kavanaugh has never admitted or repented from these actions that speaks to his character.