I find it difficult to believe that a swing-vote Supreme Court Justice would be particularly excited about someone he perceived as “partisan.” If any back-door deal was made for Kavanaugh (which I doubt), I think it was because Kavanaugh served as his clerk and he knows and trusts him.
But this isn’t true. There are hundreds of other conservative justices who could be nominated for that spot if Kavanaugh is dropped.
I am impressed that you think a democratic lawyer traveled back in time to implant false memories in Ford, who reported them to her therapist in 2012. I’m a little surprised that, given the democrats have mastered time travel, they weren’t able to undo the last election, however.
They should have conducted an investigation before making the allegation public.
I’m not ignoring the allegation, I’m considering it, the lack of supporting evidence, and judging it to be unproven to any worthwhile standard.
As for infuriating, the use of false or unsupported allegations of sexual misconduct to discredit people should infuriate everybody. We all (I hope) want to see proper investigations into actual accusations of crimes, and want to see those guilty of crimes punished. I certainly do, I know plenty of people who’ve been sexually abused, including people very close to me, and I know the harm it’s done to them. That’s why this abysmal fucking theatre around these weak allegations is so problematic, it minimises the chance of real allegations being taken seriously whilst increasing the likelihood of more false or unprovable ones being made.
And, still, to the best of my knowledge this alleged crime hasn’t actually been reported to the police. There are good arguments for Ford not reporting it decades ago, and some reasonable ones for not doing so even months ago. There are none for not doing so now - she has already lost her anonymity, and made it clear she is willing to be questioned about it.
The short version - no-one taking a dispassionate look at the evidence can believe that Kavanaugh is a sexual abuser, the most you can say is that you don’t know, to any reasonable level of certainty.
Does it change anything in your calculation that Ford first came forward with her accusations against Kavanaugh before he was nominated?
There is corroborating evidence for Ford’s claims.
At the time that Ford claims that Kavanaugh was going to illegal drinking parties, we know that Kavanaugh was going to illegal drinking parties. We know this because he showed us his calendars, with the illegal drinking parties recorded on them.
At the time that Ford claims that Kavanaugh was having group sex with women, we know that Kavanaugh was bragging about having group sex with women. We know this because some of his bragging was in his high school yearbook, which we have.
At the time that Ford claims that Kavanaugh was close to a certain location, we know that he was close to that location. We know this because his address at the time is known, and the distance can be measured on a map.
And we know that Kavanaugh has lied about all of these things, because he did his lying in front of an open session of Congress.
To reiterate: Kavanaugh has himself provided plenty of corroborating evidence against himself.
I don’t want to post, but I can’t *not *reply to these two points.
I reject the premise of the question. The question alchemizes Dr. Ford’s sexual assault with ostensible plots and schemes by Senate Democrats. It’s easier to tackle the superficial subtleties of partisan bickering and political polarization than to delve into the intricacies of sexual assault and its aftermath. The latter is difficult because it requires, in part, compassion and empathy. In any case, it is clear that, to many people, Dr. Ford’s testimony has been closed, put on the shelf, and will never to be discussed again. This is similar to Republicans who use the magic of white supremacy to transform something as grave and terrible as sexual assault to something as petulant as partisanship. It’s a magic that white liberals fall for repeatedly (which brings us to next post).
Release what? The article in* The Intercept* was not sourced by Democrats and there is no evidence to suggest that it was. If you have evidence, provide it. I want to repeat that - if you have evidence that this is a Democratic plot, please provide it. In fact, bureau chief -a believable, crust of the earth white man - of The Intercept stated this was neither Feinstein nor her staff leaked knowledge of the letter the journalist.
Kuchiyose No Jutsu
Thanks, Ryan.
That doesn’t corroborate the alleged party that no-one but Ford remembers, nor does it corroborate the alleged attack.
That is factually false. He says nothing about sex, group or otherwise, in the yearbook.
Ford did not specify a particular location, there is nothing there to be corroborated.
You are confusing “avoiding the question” with “lying”. If you think that the avoidance is good reason not to confirm him, to be honest I’d tend to agree. It doesn’t show the honesty I’d hope for from a judge. But neither is it evidence of any wrongdoing.
Utterly false.
There are good reasons not to confirm Kavanaugh - apart from anything else, he’s Trump’s pick, which almost guarantees he’s unsuitable. But an unproven allegation of sexual assault is not one of those reasons, and further it will overshadow those reasons, and lead to credible claims that any future complaints about Kavanaugh are based on the allegations and not on his very real flaws.
A major problem with your analysis is that there has never been a full investigation into those claims, as she and others have requested. The FBI, with all of its resources, could have taken steps to corroborate (even if only partially) more of her accounts, and the narratives that suggest certain patterns of behavior by Kavanaugh - patterns of behavior consistent with what Dr Ford told the Senate.
You seem to be confused about something: When discussing corroborating evidence of an alleged offense, we’re not talking about standards required for criminal prosecution; we’re talking about the standards that private employers and government agencies regularly use to evaluate fitness for a particular type of employment. It is absolutely critical for the long-term credibility of the Supreme Court and the entire federal court system that the general public have confidence in the character of the individuals who comprise the court. It’s further crucial that the public have confidence in the Senate to at least have enough decency and bipartisan respect for the public interest. Kavanaugh’s nomination process fails both tests. Leftist partisans didn’t like Gorsuch - in part because the Senate failed to act in good faith in blocking Obama’s nominee a year earlier - they didn’t like him, but they didn’t question his fitness to serve. Right wingers might not have liked Sotomayor or Kagan, but you don’t hear talk of impeaching them. But there is active speculation that Kavanaugh could be impeached in the future, and a large swath of this country’s population would totally support it. He’s illegitimate. And when we get to the point when we’re talking about removing judges not because of what they did while acting as a judge, but because they aren’t legitimate to begin with, that reflects on the entire court system. The entire federal court system is increasingly seen as a giant partisan poker chip - anything but neutral and serving the public interest.
And for the life of me, I don’t understand at all your logic in suggesting that because of the way that Democrats have handled the investigation, that they have no choice but to confirm him, because they have to send a message that any allegation that isn’t 100% corroborated is without merit. It’s an utterly ridiculous position. Kavanaugh’s background raises questions and concerns - that is enough not to promote or hire someone. It happens all the time.
Kavanaugh is a bad pick because he is a hardcore statist and establishment goon. Ford is a completely normal person or very strange person depending on the facts of the case, which I will never know. She appears to be an ideological liberal, which causes me to lean towards strange. Even assuming she is lying or mistaking him for another person, I still have more sympathy for her than the operator Kavanaugh.
I have no idea who is being truthful and their tribal affiliations don’t mean anything to me. I don’t care enough about this local crime from 30 years ago to look up the details, and that would be still be 100% true under the conditions of your thought experiments. This piques my interest about as much as a Lifetime movie based on a true story or one of those ID Discovery shows that some women enjoy.
They are both political actors, which when put into context, make their potential offenses (false accusations and sexual assaults) rather tame. The monsters I worry about are not the broadly condemned local offenders, but the beloved statesmen like your John McCains and your Hillary Clintons who use military power to try to shape the world according to their viewpoints.
Perhaps if it was actually reported to the police, they could perform such an investigation.
As for turning someone down for a job because of unsupported allegations, that should be illegal. It wouldn’t happen in any other situation than an man being accused of sexual assault by a woman.
Say I accused a woman I was briefly acquainted with as a teenager of murder. But, everybody who was allegedly at the location it happened can’t recall being there, there’s no body, and for some reason I don’t want to go to the police with my accusation. It would be laughed at - even if the person I accused was a known liar and tosspot. Anyone who actually believes in justice should insist these allegations are treated the same way.
Anyone who votes against Kavanaugh’s confirmation needs to make it extremely clear that they are doing so because of his weaseling around questions, his drinking, or his views on the law, and not because of these allegations.
Actually, under the conditions in which the accuser is male and accuser is female, I may react differently in that my eyes may permanently roll to the back of my head.
You said “accuser” twice…
I like accusers!
I don’t know who is telling the truth, but I think Kavanaugh has disqualified himself by demonstrating something we already knew about him given his background: his partisan instincts.
This. Both sides don’t do it.
Its hard to find corroborating evidence if you hide yourself in a closet wearing a blindfold and earplugs while singing the star spangled banner at the top of your lungs.
What do you have something against bisexual molestors!?!? For shame! 
Exactly. Let’s investigate as little as possible and then declare there’s simply no evidence. And I’m not just talking about the recent FBI investigation, but the investigation done by the committee after his nomination. The Kavanaugh nomination is a farce. It just shows how slimy the Republicans have become, and politics has always been dirty. But they’re really sinking into the muck, and they kind of seem to revel in it. Kind of daring their voters, yeah but what are you going to do about it peon. We know you’re going to keep voting for us because what’s the alternative, the gun-stealing, abortion-supporting, godless Demonrats! Muh ha ha ha ha!
Before Democrats pat themselves on the back, let’s see how they react when it’s someone who isn’t as expendable as Franken. It’s one thing to like someone a lot and be sad they have to go. It’s another thing entirely when it’s one of your senate candidates this October, or your Democratic Presidential nominee.
Quartz is more of a “Rule Britannia” man.
Speaking of mob rule: of Ford and Kavanaugh, which one of them was driven from their home by death threats?
Uh-huh. “Why do you people persist in refusing to be the hypocrites I like to pretend you are?”
Utterly wrong. How have you managed to stay so uneducated on a subject you argue so much about?