Wait, wait, wait: there was ice in his beer? Nevermind anything else, this fact alone totally disqualifies him from any public office or gainful employment.
[Samuel L. Jackson]Check out the big brain on Brett![/SLJ]
Gotta love that non sequitur of a response by Brett.
Never mind the spicy food, how is reciting your academic resume an acceptable answer to “So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?”
Kavanaugh’s responses to those questions, and the fawning over his performance by so many conservative pundits and office-holders, shows how massively broken huge parts of the American population’s understanding is for sexual assault and rape. Even today, after a year or two that should make it clear how utterly wrong this is, millions and millions of Americans (including many or even most of the rich and powerful) think that being an ostensibly upstanding and high-achieving person counts as evidence that one is not capable (or less likely to be capable) of rape or sexual assault.
And based on many of the responses in this thread, there are some Dopers who believe that as well. Sad, but unfortunately not surprising.
From Kavanaugh’s end, there’s a chance he attacked her. And there’s a chance he did not.
From Blasey Ford’s end, she was almost certainly assaulted, but there’s a chance that it wasn’t Kavanaugh.
There’s no corroborating evidence to support either claim, Kavanaugh’s and Blasey Ford’s. So, what to do? Smear Kavanaugh? What?
As Senator Robert Byrd said during the debate on the nomination of Clarence Thomas, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the Supreme Court.
Just as the graveyards are full of indispensable men, Judge Kavenaugh is not the only person in the country suited to sit on the Supreme Court.
It’s not a smear to comment on his lies and temperament.
We could consider the statements made by the two. One gave an earnest description of an assault, the other claimed his membership in the Beach Week Ralph Club had to do with spicy food.
I don’t know whether or not her account is accurate, but I do know that’s he’s a liar, and appears to let no chance to lie about his past go by truthfully. Dude is a Bizzaro George Washington.
Going with her account as the most likely to be true is the only play here.
And he revealed his temperament during the hearing for everyone to witness
This would all be so much easier if Judge Kavanaugh liked answering embarrassing personal questions half as much as he enjoyed posing them.
There’s no reason to think that timeline is contradictory. She may have fought for the door without revealing the underlying reason why she wanted the door. I can totally see this timeline of events [Note: major assumptions on my part. Do not take as fact.]:
- She was pressing for a 2nd front door during renovations. He was objecting because of cost. They argue heavily over this issue.
- He eventually relents, but it creates resentment.
- Whenever they argue, especially about money, he brings up the $XX,000 they wasted on that ugly front door.
- For one reason or another, they go to counseling
- He brings up the front door as an example of how she makes unreasonable demands
- She comes clean as to why she wanted the door
So the fact that they went to counseling after the renovations doesn’t necessarily mean she was lying. It’s consistent with the way people in a marriage work through problems.
This reminds me a bit of what was once attributed to Cardinal Richelieu
If only we were dealing with one of the “most honest of men”. Unfortunately, we’re dealing with someone who wants us to believe that “Renate Alumni”, which stood alongside in the yearbook a poem about how Renate was always available “late” for a “date”, was meant kindly and respectfully.
And if that was ‘judicial temperament,’ then every argumentative asshole in a bar has it.
And it’s probably even easier if the 6 lines are written by an inveterate liar.
Here is Avenatti client Julie Swetnick’s recent interview. It’s 20mins long.
I’ll summarize my takeaways.
-
It’s a boring interview. She doesn’t seem nearly as credible or compelling as Ford. Which to me says a lot about Ford and her claims.
-
Her claim in the statement of Kav spiking the punch is walked back. It’s now just Kav standing around the punch, handing out solo cups. Nothing about “spiking” or even making the punch.
-
Her claim in the statement that clearly implied Kav was involved in a gang rape is walked back. It’s now just Kav standing around a door with other boys (not in a line or “train”). She didn’t see what was going on in the room, but now thinks it was “rape”.
-
She still alleges she personally was assaulted/raped. She remembers Kav and Judge being at the party. She told her Mom the next day (Mom is now deceased). She also told the local police (the officer she told is now deceased). I really don’t see how this has anything to do with Kav if there’s nothing else to No. 3 above.
-
MSNBC has tried to corroborate her story, but they have been unable to.
-
She is unclear on her timeline when/why she decided to come forward. She said it was about 6 weeks ago, when she learned Kav was on the “short-list” and in response to Ford’s allegation. That doesn’t add up.
Yes. :dubious:
I take it by your attempted accusation of tu quoque, that you do not think that Kavanaugh can be?
Lindsay Graham apparently just said that if Kavanaugh is rejected, that Trump should renominate Kavanaugh. I can’t even tell what the possible strategy there would be.
So you couldn’t answer any of my questions?
I’ll bet you yell at clouds too.
I would guess there would be a different Republican makeup after the mid-terms. Flake is gone as a swing vote, and they might gain Senate seats after the election. Really embracing a come hell or high water strategy.