Kavana(ugh)
- Thread starter hodad
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
living sounds
Well-known member
I just saw part of the testemony. A federal appeals court judge attacking a political party in the Senate and uttering the words "as revenge for the Clintons". Wow.
There have been some amusing (only to one political party) memes going around the internet with Bill Clinton nervously pondering such a rigorous inspection of his decades old sexual encounters (and Hillary's blanket dismissal of sundry women's accusations). Europe has historically looked down at the US for being too prudish, powerful men need their paramours on the side...DaveP said:
If they thought we were prudes before, what must they think now? (rhetorical....)Indeed men of power have long existed in a target rich environment as women are attracted to power like moths to a flame (another evolutionary characteristic to insure protection for their offspring, at least that is the theory). Presidents have been getting tail on the side long before JFK... President Eisenhower reportedly had an affair with his female army driver, and I doubt that he was first or a new development back then. If anything the #metoo movement is probably making modern politicians more careful, but it is impossible to retroactively go back and undo decades old history.
=====
Coincidentally Senator Ted Kennedy (JFKs brother) was the original Borker.... I guess they could have called it being "Kennedy'd" but there were too many Kennedy brothers in politics back then so that would be confusing. I thought JFK was a great man, RFK showed promise, and Ted Kennedy was the black sheep of that family.
Politics has always been a dirty fight, and they have routinely piggyback on popular cultural trends for political benefit. #metoo is just the most recent example. Once again President Trump is not behaving like a typical politician, and pretty exposed in this area, so I expect even more accusations.
JR
PS: One question I don't recall them asking Judge Kananuagh was about under-age drinking. He seems like more of a boy scout than I was at his age, but I still suspect he did (I surely did), and he probably did not document such under-age drinking in his diary. Which opens a whole can of worms about respecting the law, and completeness of his diary. That said I am not sure what any of this says about the man today. :
Matador
Well-known member
See, you have it all wrong Banzai: as an originalist, we must always first ask "What Would the Founders Think?"Banzai said:
From "The Constitutional Status of Women in 1987":
So Kavanagh would view his own conduct as not outside of the norm of this framework.
Well technically it is because they were minors and he at least was drunk. If she was only 15 she was chancing it hanging around drunk older boys, but that is still no excuse for what they did.
Part of the problem was that she was, and still is, a very nervous, anxious, fragile woman, another girl might have kicked him in the nuts and thought little more of it. My wife does not go along with the #metoo movement so I get a different view I guess.
As they are both very forceful in their testimonies, I find it difficult to discern the truth. She could be mistaking his identity or he could have been so drunk he couldn't remember, they can't both be right. As a background, it seems all a little too coincidental that they should have come forward after so many years at this time. My own opinion is that whatever happens, his career is over, mud sticks.
DaveP
yup saw that, go by, surprised nobody dug deeper.scott2000 said:
I do not know him and found his testimony hard to watch, but it reminded me of past such questioning sessions where the witness was clearly the smartest person in the room. Funny to have senators lecture him about law and government. :
Both witnesses deserve some kind of award for their performances. Both were well coached and apparently listened to their handlers.
============
I would like pretty much like any conservative Jurist from the list candidate Trump published before his election (another kept promise).
For any paying attention, I wanted republicans to approve Garland for SCOTUS back then, because I figured he would be more moderate (a calculation by Pres Obama to help his chances) than who Hillary Clinton would appoint after she won.
Glad I was wrong about her chances, but I don't mind a centrist SCOTUS jurist. That's why there are 9 of them.
JR
Dave you keep repeating this like it is establish fact... AFAIK it isn't.DaveP said:
She is believable that she suffered an assault, less believable that Kavanaugh attacked her.
Again no proof Kavanaugh did anything of the sort.
Modern culture is changing very rapidly and many people are tangled up with uncomfortable personal histories. Resist accepting partisan political spin as fact. This is the problem with trial by public opinion.
Mud slinging generally works, which is why they still do it, but more effective in vague political ads just before an election. On this stage with bright lights, unsubstantiated claims are more likely to melt away.
The same strategy has been used before with mixed success... Justice Thomas was ultimately approved after allegations of sexual harassment.
It isn't over until it's over. Such public hearings are like ink blot tests that reveal what we want to see (two movies yadda yadda). Kavanaugh supporters believe he exonerated himself, his attackers think she won the day.
IMO she needs to work on her memory and build a more credible case. Sitting on the high court does not make Kavanaugh above the law so he could still be prosecuted for the hypothetical crime, but she needs more when, where, and some concrete evidence, not just character attacks that are cheap and meaningless in modern team politics.
She is a victim here too and was taken advantage of by partisan legislators to slime an opposition candidate, with no concern for her well being.
JR
desol
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,174
I don't buy the not guilty for lack of a bad memory excuse...or not guilty for lack of concrete evidence excuse.
Bad memory and a lack of evidence would be somewhat reasonable with a sexual assault that occurred a long time ago. Her recollection of it seems clear enough in terms of details. If anything it's Brett's job to attempt to produce concrete evidence that what she says occurred, didn't. I didn't watch it but from the bits I did, I didn't believe him...and I believed her. She remembers all the details quite well.
Additionally, this woman only has things to lose by doing this and nothing to gain. We need to use common discernment here when attempting to verify subjectivity. Sounds like there is more to Brett's story as well with reports of three women??
Usually where there's smoke there's fire.
Bad memory and a lack of evidence would be somewhat reasonable with a sexual assault that occurred a long time ago. Her recollection of it seems clear enough in terms of details. If anything it's Brett's job to attempt to produce concrete evidence that what she says occurred, didn't. I didn't watch it but from the bits I did, I didn't believe him...and I believed her. She remembers all the details quite well.
Additionally, this woman only has things to lose by doing this and nothing to gain. We need to use common discernment here when attempting to verify subjectivity. Sounds like there is more to Brett's story as well with reports of three women??
Usually where there's smoke there's fire.
dmp
Well-known member
The committee turned this into a he said / she said. No surprise that it is team politics in what side people are taking.
They could have called other witnesses.
Don't forget the Senate has an important role to advise and consent.
Bork's history with the firing of the special prosecutor during Watergate was disqualifying.
Extreme candidates that are unsuitable for the court should not be confirmed.
They could have called other witnesses.
Don't forget the Senate has an important role to advise and consent.
Bork's history with the firing of the special prosecutor during Watergate was disqualifying.
Extreme candidates that are unsuitable for the court should not be confirmed.
His best friend in High School Mark Judge wrote a book called "Wasted" about his High School years. Kavanaugh is saying he was a choir boy. It's not believable to me. If he had said something like "I drank a lot in High School, I do not remember doing this but if I did I'm sorry. I've grown as a person and I think my experiences inform my decisions in a positive way." He probably would have had much more support. Instead he did the righteous indignation routine and lied. If he hadn't lied about receiving the stolen emails from Sen Lahey with the excuse that he didn't notice because everyone was bipartisan friends then is also not believable.
desol
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,174
Exactly. If you did it and thought it forgotten...admit it, apologize...go from there; it at least shows some accountability. He could be following Trump's deny and lie routine, as advised. He's also accountable to his wife as well.......yikes.
Good luck with all of that...
Good luck with all of that...
dmp
Well-known member
Kavanaugh's July 1st calendar entry says "skis with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi" . Presumably meaning brewskis, beers.
These are other guys mentioned in Dr. Ford's testimony.
If Kavanaugh were incorrectly identified as the perp, wouldn't he be concerned about all the specifics that line up with his circle of friends?
Why did he reply with so much belligerent anger and stonewalling? Not to mention the bullsh*t deep state Clinton conspiracy garbage.
These are other guys mentioned in Dr. Ford's testimony.
If Kavanaugh were incorrectly identified as the perp, wouldn't he be concerned about all the specifics that line up with his circle of friends?
Why did he reply with so much belligerent anger and stonewalling? Not to mention the bullsh*t deep state Clinton conspiracy garbage.
DaveP said:
Not to me. I've put the fear of God into every bully I've met. I have no problem being the biggest asshole you've ever met when called for. That doesn't mean that everyone is like me or that its okay to bully people.
pucho812
Well-known member
Ford has a gofund me page, it's over half a million dollars....
Kavanaugh was just passed out of committee. So there you go. Not enough evidence that could have easily been investigated by the FBI. But nope Feinstein sat on it for almost a month. If there is a story here it's how ford was used in a ooor attempt at political gain.
I don't doubt something happened to her or thinks something happened to her 36 years ago. I have my doubts it was BK who did it. The witness she named doubted it was BK as well.
Kavanaugh was just passed out of committee. So there you go. Not enough evidence that could have easily been investigated by the FBI. But nope Feinstein sat on it for almost a month. If there is a story here it's how ford was used in a ooor attempt at political gain.
I don't doubt something happened to her or thinks something happened to her 36 years ago. I have my doubts it was BK who did it. The witness she named doubted it was BK as well.
Bo Deadly
Well-known member
I'm surprised that isn't getting more traction. I thought that was exactly the sort of thing you don't want to hear from a SCJ candidate. When I saw that, I thought, "ewww, he's toast". Apparently not.dmp said:
Matador
Well-known member
That was the sole qualification. It's the feature, not a bug.
ruairioflaherty
Well-known member
I'm completely baffled and saddened by some of the posts here, truly astounded that otherwise intelligent men could think like that.
It's not surprising that all of us have different views because we come from diverse backgrounds and have had different life experiences. I think it's a mistake to think that any particular state, or any particular party is the sole repository of truth. Maybe the older generation has things to learn from millennials and maybe they have things to learn from us, that is why we talk like this.
DaveP
living sounds
Well-known member
One more oberservation: Looking at the two testimonies what came across to me was that Dr. Ford's appearance was motivated by a sense of civic duty, whereas Kavenaugh was there to claim what he perceived was entitled to. His anger and conspiracy theories seemed to reflect that. If his primary concern was for the country he would have long stepped down to prevent damage to the institutions, rather than appear on Fox news and angrily attack the opposition in a partisan manner.
Don't you think the way they behaved was because of their different roles as well? Dr. Ford was nervously making the accusation, but Judge K was seeing his entire career trashed in a day, not forgetting what his wife and children will now have to endure. Stepping down would be universally seen as an admission of guilt.
We have a friend who has a similar disposition to Dr. Ford, i.e. an anxious personality. When his marriage broke up 11 years ago, his wife tried to to accuse him of sexual abuse in order to get a greater share of their property. He was suicidal (even though the Police refused to get involved). My wife prepared the legal refutation for his barrister and saved his share of the property. The point I'm making is that slinking away from a false accusation just confirms your guilt.
This does not mean I think he is innocent, I just don't know yet.
DaveP
