This question is full of fallacies.
The more informal meaning is not “incorrect.”
A person wouldn’t have to be “not knowledgeable” to use the informal meaning.
Either of them may use either or both meanings depending on the context.
You’d have to offer me solid evidence for me to buy that either is implying that they wish to skip the entire process and just jump right into an impeachment vote.
Which is all well and good (I have no difficulty imagining a mother hesitant to pry too deep into the private life of her daughter), but she sure as hell doesn’t count as any sort of corroborating witness if she didn’t hear anything more than a circuitous allusion to “something happened”. If she didn’t hear the name Brett Kavanaugh or the details of the incident, as nice a lady as she might be, her usefulness for corroborating her daughter’s story is essentially zero.
So cutting through the crap you think they are saying he should be impeached to mean he should be investigated to see if there are grounds for impeachment?
I don’t.
nm
They may be saying that they personally believe that the process will result in impeachment. I do not believe they are saying that everyone should just skip ahead to that part. And I don’t believe that you believe that either.
For fuck’s sake. Can’t republicans find nominees who will deregulate environmental laws and pass money up to the one percent who are NOT serial sexual abusers? There must be a few of them out there.
Let’s keep personal shots unrelated to the genuine discussion out of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
As** iiandyiiii** has already suggested, a more thorough inquiry by the FBI, for example, would help separate evidence from hearsay. But that hasn’t happened so far, and likely won’t under the current administration.
How about if you ‘heard’ that a co-worker had his bosses’ dick thrust in his face, and a couple of other co-workers also ‘heard’ it? Every group of people has gossip - high school kids more than anyone, probably.
I’m guessing that if you had passed along that gossip, then someone came to you and said, “Will you testify in court?”, you’d suddenly get very quiet. Because while the story has always been ‘out there’, you actually have no idea if it’s true or not, and you have no business saying it was when it actually matters and isn’t just gossip. That’s probably where Stier is right now. And the fact that the supposed victim can’t remember it happening at all is about the biggest red flag you could possibly see.
Do you remember the ‘satanist day care’ scare? Some people ‘heard’ things, and a couple of children, when prodded by adults, said that maybe something had happened. The result was a minor national panic, with people coming out of the woodwork with stories of satanist cults running daycares and strange rituals. None of it was true.
There’s a reason we don’t use hearsay in court, and why we have a statute of limitations. Thirty five year old memories are not reliable, especially when the ‘victims’ like Mrs Ramirez need six days of counselling by lawyers and activists before ‘maybe remembering’ that it ‘might’ have been Kavanaugh.
The Times is guilty of yellow journalism. Publishing a story based on hearsay, while neglecting known facts that cast doubt on your story, is a classic example of yellow journalism. If Congress impeached Kavanaugh based on hearsay, it would open the flood gates for impeachment hearings against anyone the current power brokers in Washington didn’t like. It would be a very dangerous precedent, and in the future more likely to be employed against Democrats.
I can remember when many of us were warning that Harry Reid’s killing of the filibuster for judicial appointments was a horrible precedent to set. We were shouted down because it was useful to the left at the time.
Well, now Trump is setting records for judicial appointments to the lower courts, and he’s put two Supreme Court justices on the bench and there’s a chance he’ll get a third.
But by all means, let’s lower the bar on impeachment because it might be slightly useful to do so today. What could go wrong?
Damned if I know how it works any better for the Dems in the alternate universe where Reid doesn’t kill the lower-court judicial filibuster. There’d be a shit-ton more judicial vacancies on January 20, 2017 in the alternate universe than there were in this one, and a shit-ton fewer Obama nominees on those lower courts. So Trump would get to fill all of those, instead of just some of them.
And when Trump nominated Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and the Dems filibustered, you think Mitch wouldn’t have killed the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees anyway?
You remember when the Dems filibustered ten of Bush’s first couple hundred lower court nominees, and the GOP was ready to kill the judicial filibuster over that? You really think Mitch would have said, OK, you win, no Gorsuch then?
The only difference in the alternate universe is that Trump would get to fill the seats he filled, and the ones Obama filled during his second term. Send me back in time to 2013, and I’d tell Harry Reid to do the same thing all over again.
+1
Oh give us a break. iiandyiiii doesn’t want a thorough investigation, he wants a show trial. His sole goal is to do political damage to the Republicans and put the fear of God into potential bad guys. No one is stupid enough to think we should have a thorough investigation into a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim, for god’s sake.
Actually, I really do want a thorough investigation. No need for it to be televised. It could even be in secret, as long as the results are released in full.
I really actually care about this issue (sexual assault and rape and general mistreatment of women) a lot – far more than short and medium term politics. At this point in time, every serious allegation, especially against powerful men, should be investigated thoroughly.
I believe you really care. Enough to generally be dishonest to combat it. Like here, pretending a 30 yr old crime with no witnesses or victim should be thoroughly investigated for purely justice concerns.
I love the way you’re avoiding personal attacks here; your laser-like focus on the facts really does you proud.
The facts are: this is a long past story with no witnesses or victim. When someone insists that this is a big new deal we should all start investigating, the only fact left to ponder is their motivation.
What would be a “very good explanation” in your view?
I’m not suggesting impeachment on hearsay. I’m suggesting have FBI investigate as best they can, without a deadline or restrictions on who they can or cannot speak with. If they come up with zilch then that’s what they report and that will have to be the end of it. Sure people will complain about that outcome, but at least due diligence will have been done.
There may not be a criminal trial and conviction due to the statute of limitations. But if there is credible evidence in support of the allegations against BT, then would it not be better for SCOTUS as an institution (and the country as a whole) to have him removed? I’ve no doubt Trump would replace him with another conservative judge so it would not necessarily be a real change to the composition of the court.
Fake noose? It was just bunker room talk?
There were very fine people, on both sides.