Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

[UltraVires]

@Banquet_Bear

…we can readily dismiss your accusation as not credible because we have you on record as admitting that you made it up.

If you have any evidence that Ford has admitted making up her claim then I will happily dismiss her claim as not credible, just as I’ve dismissed your claim because you concede your claim is not true.

Really? You can do better than this.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Fiddle_Peghead

… I assume you don’t have a problem with them doing this, do you?

None at all. They’ve got a right to express themselves, same as you or me. I was pushing back at the implication that this letter, from many people who didn’t even know Christine Ford, is somehow comparable to the letter signed by 65 “women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983.” It’s not in the same league, at least in terms of character witnessing. But, as you note, it’s fine for them to express their wishes / desires on this or any other matter.

[Banquet_Bear]

@UltraVires

Really? You can do better than this.

…yes really.

And as a lawyer you really should know better. Your hypothetical doesn’t teach us anything. Its a hypothetical that you can apply to any case of sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, where we have to rely on “he said she said.” Your hypothetical ignores a huge amount of background context that supports her claim and reduces everything down to a couple of sentences. “Your scenario” and “her scenario” are not even close to being analogous.

No the committee shouldn’t investigate a claim that is not credible, and there is nothing in your claim that is credible at all.

You can do better than this.

[UltraVires]

@Banquet_Bear

…yes really.

And as a lawyer you really should know better. Your hypothetical doesn’t teach us anything. Its a hypothetical that you can apply to any case of sexual assault, sexual harassment, rape, where we have to rely on “he said she said.” Your hypothetical ignores a huge amount of background context that supports her claim and reduces everything down to a couple of sentences. “Your scenario” and “her scenario” are not even close to being analogous.

No the committee shouldn’t investigate a claim that is not credible, and there is nothing in your claim that is credible at all.

You can do better than this.

What part of my claim is not credible by your definition? It could have certainly happened, could it have not? Further, we don’t dismiss a “victim’s” allegation out of hand, right? We investigate. Why should the Senate not investigate my “claim”?

Assume, like I hoped any reasonable person would, that my admission that it was false was solely for the purposes of disclaimer and not as a substantive point for analysis.

[Sherrerd]

@John_Mace

Frankly, I don’t believe anyone can reliably remember how much drinking they did on a given night, 35 years ago. …

It would be possible to remember if you had a habit of drinking some particular amount and no more–for instance, “one beer.”

There are many people who have such a habit, and who could therefore be reliable in their accounts of how much they drank on any given night, no matter how long ago that night occurred.

[Lance_Turbo]

@UltraVires

So maybe you will answer the question: If I tell the story, but I don’t have the names of his buddies because I allege that we were alone, do we toss my allegations in the dumpster, or do I get to be in front of the Judiciary Committee?

Write a letter to your congressperson. Let’s see how far this goes.

[Sherrerd]

@iiandyiiii

A quote from the senior yearbook photo/blurb of Kavanaugh’s alleged accomplice in the attempted rape: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs”

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1041499444666163201

@ElvisL1ves

How did the faculty adviser let that one get through?

Perhaps the adviser was a Noel Coward fan (it’s a line from his 1930 play “Private Lives.”) Or perhaps the adviser was a misogynist.

Noël Coward - Wikiquote

[Sherrerd]

@Tired_and_Cranky

But this same charge could could not be plausibly leveled by just anyone.

Literally anyone who just wanted to disrupt the nomination process on the flimsiest of accusations could have made an anonymous report about any purported misconduct. They could accuse Kavanaugh of rape, or pedophilia, or necrophilia, or kicking puppies.

This started as a anonymous report and I believed it even then. There are lots of reasons to want to remain anonymous when leveling such an accusation. Shame, fear of retaliation, getting doxed and harassed by supporters, the likely futility, etc. But, I can understand why reasonable people might disregard an anonymous report as unreliable. Maybe my belief was partisan. I can accept that. But, maybe people who disbelieved the anonymous report are also disbelieving for partisan reasons. In light of new evidence, they should revisit their disbelief.

We eventually learned who the accuser was. It wasn’t a Russian troll, a 20-year-old man, or a hermit in the Andes mountains. Kavanaugh’s accuser a woman who grew up in the same area that Kavanaugh grew up in, who is roughly the same age, who knew him, who knew Kavanaugh’s friend by name, who knew that Kavanaugh partied with this friend, and knew their style of partying to know that they basically got black-out drunk together. So now, we’re down to a universe of maybe a few dozens of women who could have accused him of this.

And, of those few dozens of women, the one to accuse him had to bear enough of a grudge against Kavanaugh that she would want to tell a story decades later to keep him off the Supreme Court. I believe that his attempting to rape her might be such a motivation. I can’t think of a lot of other reasons for someone to hold such a grudge privately for years.

If she were inventing a story, she would also have to believe that an attempted rape accusation is the best way to do this, even though as a woman today, she must recognize that questioning a woman’s credibility and disregarding her evidence is routine in claims of sexual harassment and rape. Kavanaugh’s accuser must look at how Anita Hill was treated and think “I want that for myself.” If she were making up the story she also have had to decide that talking about an attempted rape is going to be as effective for her as a completed rape even though the evidence for either is exactly the same. She would also have to decide that her story is more credible if she also names Kavanaugh’s friend so this turns from a “he said-she-said” story into one where multiple people have reason to attack her credibility and where her liability for defamation is doubled. This seems like a bad strategy move.

Then, in a nefarious turn, she would have to go back in time six years and tell this fabricated story to her therapist and her husband.

Somewhere along there, I can’t help but believe her story is true and partisan opponents are just willfully disregarding where the weight of the evidence has gone.

My hunch is that the core of her story will be corroborated by additional evidence over time or that additional accusers will come forward. Some of the evidence will be circumstantial. My hunch is Kavanaugh’s denial won’t get any more convincing.

This is a fast-moving thread, and for those who might have missed it, I wanted to highlight your excellent reasoning in this post.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Holy Moley, you’re a lawyer Ultravires?

@Ultravires

So maybe you will answer the question: If I tell the story, but I don’t have the names of his buddies because I allege that we were alone, do we toss my allegations in the dumpster, or do I get to be in front of the Judiciary Committee?

Feinstein’s staff forwards your letter to the FBI, along with your confession that your story is false. The FBI professionals consider the matter for about 15 seconds. That’s what happens at most.

If a rando makes allegations like that, congressional staff makes the judgment about whether the letter goes in the crank file, gets reported to the FBI with a dubious note, or gets reported to the FBI with an encouraging note. This isn’t hard and it’s probably done many times a day in Washington.

Similarly for news organizations making news judgments. What are you going on about?

Separately, does anybody here think Justice Kavanaugh is potentially vulnerable to blackmail, if there are many examples of him imploring people not to speak of indiscretions? Or many examples of making intentional false or misleading statements under oath? I sure do.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Several people seem to be having trouble with the concept of “suppose such-and-such happens”.

“You just admitted that it didn’t really happen” is not a logical response.

[John_Mace]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Several people seem to be having trouble with the concept of “suppose such-and-such happens”.

“You just admitted that it didn’t really happen” is not a logical response.

We all gotta do something while we’re waiting for some new tidbit to be dropped, like a doggie treat, so we can snap it up and chew it.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Sherrerd

It would be possible to remember if you had a habit of drinking some particular amount and no more–for instance, “one beer.”

There are many people who have such a habit, and who could therefore be reliable in their accounts of how much they drank on any given night, no matter how long ago that night occurred.

At 3 beers I’m drunk. At 2 beers I’m tipsy. I’m not sure how to characterize my feelings with 1 alcohol unit, but I do feel an effect.

I think I could easily figure out my alcohol consumption for any given night +/- 1 beer, regardless of how long ago it was. I agree that Mace puts his finger on something that the witness could potentially be questioned about, but that is all.
On preview:
Fotheringay-Phipps: I hope you’re not referring to me: if so:

@Measure_for_Measure

If a rando makes allegations like that, congressional staff makes the judgment about whether the letter goes in the crank file, gets reported to the FBI with a dubious note, or gets reported to the FBI with an encouraging note. This isn’t hard and it’s probably done many times a day in Washington.

Similarly for news organizations making news judgments. What are you going on about?

[Fiveyearlurker]

MSNBC reporting there will be a public hearing next week.

[Banquet_Bear]

@UltraVires

What part of my claim is not credible by your definition?

…the part where you admit you made everything up.

It could have certainly happened, could it have not?

Nope. Unless you have something else you would like to say?

Further, we don’t dismiss a “victim’s” allegation out of hand, right? We investigate. Why should the Senate not investigate my “claim”?

Because you aren’t a victim. We have you on record as admitting that you made the whole thing up.

Assume, like I hoped any reasonable person would, that my admission that it was false was solely for the purposes of disclaimer and not as a substantive point for analysis.

What is substantive about your hypothetical?

You spent barely a paragraph inventing it. If we question any part of your hypothetical you will just make your hypothetical more and more elaborate. And you will drag us all away from the substantive issues under discussion here as we get wrapped up in the fantasy world you are creating. Is that your goal here?

Because I will happily concede that if you did meet Kavanaugh at a legal conference some years ago, maybe in 2003, let’s say, and that he invited you back to his room and attempted to force homosexual intercourse on you, and if you had a credible back-story (as Ford does) then absolutely the committee should investigate.

But your story fails at the “credible back-story” point. Because we know you made your story up. So there really isn’t any point exploring your hypothetical any further.

[John_Mace]

@Fiveyearlurker

MSNBC reporting there will be a public hearing next week.

We have to wait until next week? Unconstitutional! Cruel and unusual punishment.

We’re gonna need a bigger thread.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Measure_for_Measure

… Fotheringay-Phipps: I hope you’re not referring to me…

I’m just guessing here, but it was probably a reference to posts like Banquet Bear’s #1254

[Fiveyearlurker]

@John_Mace

We have to wait until next week? Unconstitutional! Cruel and unusual punishment.

We’re gonna need a bigger thread.

I would say there’s a decent chance he bails out or his nomination is pulled before that. Just a guess.

[Banquet_Bear]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Several people seem to be having trouble with the concept of “suppose such-and-such happens”.

…which people are you talking about?

“You just admitted that it didn’t really happen” is not a logical response.

Why not?

[Sherrerd]

@Fiveyearlurker

I would say there’s a decent chance he bails out or his nomination is pulled before that. Just a guess.

There will be time for others to come forward, if there are others.

There will also be time for some of the many hidden-by-Republicans documents to come out. Undoubtedly there is material of interest in those papers. (Why else would the GOP have been so adamant about hiding them?)
And, frankly, there will also be time for others on the Federalist list to privately assure Trump that they, too, will give him a Get Out of Jail Free card.

The other candidates may not have Kavanaugh’s distinction of having said and written such things on the record. But if they are convincing enough—and it’s only Donald Trump they have to convince!—they could have a shot at the highest (and potentially most lucrative) place that their profession can bestow.

[Bijou_Drains]

the running out the clock strategy did not work. What’s plan B?