Kavanaugh hearing

[Svartalf]

mmmh, I can get the "right to forgetfulness", but yearbooks are public documents, that's definitely smelly...

[Brian Peacock]

The Kavanaugh accuser (which one?) seems to have prepared by having all their yearbooks removed from the internet...that isn't suspicious is it?

I mean, the timing isn't suspicious either...getting an 'Avenatti'-tier lawyer isn't suspicious enough on its own.

What happened to his other star client? Didn't Stormy get busted for whoring in a non-whoring state or something?

Yeah, these women are clearly vindictive, manipulative gold-diggers who will gleefully liable a good man for the sake of spite, fame and personal gain. Surely, we should be focusing on the character of these women rather than their flimsy allegations about the youthful high jinks and revelry of decent, law abiding, god-fearing men.

[Cunt]

I don't say they are CLEARLY anything. If anything, I'm seeing less and less clarity on issues which were presented (by BOTH sides) as very black & white.

[Tero]

How many penises on the court now?
Two vaginas!

[Sean Hayden]

The litmus test for this one is easy. If our government is sane and responsible then it will refuse to appoint Kavanaugh on the basis that he is an activist seeking to undermine current laws. We know this because no sane individual would allow themselves to be put through this. Only a zealot would. We don't need zealots on the court.

Strange as it may seem then, for Kavanaugh to gain my trust he must first try to back out.

[Svartalf]

Obama's administration was fairly sane, but the current one is anything but

[Joe]

Yeah, this one's a regular three ring circus.

[Forty Two]

No question he's a smart dude, he's got massive judicial chops, and is widely respected by the legal community. His positions (the ones I've read) seem well thought out and fair. And he'll be confirmed, even if by a margin of 1. Cue Democratic Doomsday Derangement Syndrome in 3.....2.....1....

It is beyond me why they're allowing the protesters, it's the most transparent and ridiculous political theater I've ever seen and I was around for Watergate so that's saying something.

Dude, he thinks sitting presidents shouldn't be investigated, which basically would put presidents above the law. That alone should disqualify him imo. Plus, he's rabidly anti-abortion. We don't need more religious loonies on the court.

Kavanaugh's view is mainstream and shared by both liberal and conservative legal experts. President cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office. The prosecution would be delayed until he or she left office. And, that is common around the world regarding the head of state. In the US, it's governed by Article I of the Constitution regarding impeachments - after a President is impeached and convicted, then he would be subject to indictment.

But giving the issue any real thought, it's obvious why it would be bad policy to have the President subject to indictment generally. If a sitting president could be indicted and tried by a prosecutor, there would be 93 federal DAs who could indict him, and add to that the 100s of county prosecutors of every state. The danger is obvious. Chaos. If the president can be tried, convicted and imprisoned while in office, is he going to serve the remainder of his term while confined in a penitentiary? Is Joliet State Prison going to be the Midwestern White House? What if he appeals and wins?

What if the Polk County state's attorney charged the president with "official misconduct" for usurping Congressional power to declare war by taking out an Islamic State terrorist training camp in Libya without specific prior Congressional approval? Would the president have to put all other issues on his desk on the back burner to defend himself in Polk County criminal court, giving 12 jurors the right to nullify the election or control US foreign policy?

What about an indictment against a President for violating the eligibility requirements? He has to answer every prosecutor from some podunk red state/county who wants to prosecute him?

[Forty Two]

It couldn't have happned cause Ramirez was drunk. And Kavanaugh does not remember. It does not say in his calendar from college days that he planned to shove penis in random woman's face at party!

Nobody says it "couldn't" have happened. Lots of wild parties have lots of wild things happen, including exposure of genitals and such. The question isn't what "could" have happened. The question is what happened.

Ramirez was drunk, and states that for three decades she recalled something happening - done by someone, but wasn't sure who it was. She took 6 days with discussion with her attorney to clarify her 3 decade old recollection, and satisfied herself that she did, in fact, remember, and it was Kavanaugh.

A vague recollection of a party where something happened, and she isn't entirely sure, obviously,herself if it was Kavanaugh or someone else - is that something to accept?

What if Kavanaugh vaguely recollected that when he was drunk, he kinda sorta remembers that she asked him to take his dick out because she wanted some dick? Would that be credible or not?

Or, is it like the Democratic Senator who just said on the news earlier today that the Republicans refuse to accept that "women do not lie about these things?"

[Forty Two]

TW: Too much truth.

I Revealed A Priest Abused Me 30 Years Ago. If I’m A Hero, Why Isn’t Christine Blasey Ford?

I think it's because the context is different. In the case of Blasey Ford, she never mentioned this for 30 years, and never said it was Kavanaugh for 36 years, and her recollections are vague. The disclosure also comes at a time when there is a motive for fabrication. Coming forward and revealing abuse that's 30 years old at time when there is no political or activist motive is different than when there is a motive. Further, the details matter, and if what you revealed about the priest is far more persuasive factually, then people would be more prone to accept the story as accurate. However, that being said, there have been false allegations made against priests, and there was a rash of "recovered memory" cases where innocent priests had their lives ruined by false accusations.

If, however, you were bringing this up now at a time when this priest was being considered for a high ranking position, and it was revealed that you didn't like this priest or supported his opposition, then some people would question whether your accusation was fabricated to further that interest.

[Forty Two]

And so, this weekend, within the space of a few hours, something remarkable happened. The salient question about Ford’s allegations became, in some quarters, not whether they are true, but rather whether they count as allegations at all. The cruelties she describes—the alleged acts of dehumanization that left her traumatized, she says, as a 15-year-old and, still, as an adult—might be “terrible,” yes, but they are also … simply part of the natural order of things. Boys, figuring out how to be men. Locker-room talk, made manifest. “Drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven.” Who wouldn’t be implicated in that? Who doesn’t see himself, in some way, in this age-old story? If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.

Americans talk a lot, these days, about norms. What will be preserved, in the tumult and chaos of today’s politics; what is worth preserving; what will fall away. Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was already, in the profoundest of ways, a matter of norms: It will determine, almost inevitably, whether the women of America maintain autonomy over their bodies. Here, though, in Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that a young Brett Kavanaugh compromised her autonomy in another way, another norm is being litigated: the way we talk about sexual violence. Whether such violence will be considered an outrage, or simply a sad inevitability. Whether it will be treated as morally intolerable ... or as something that, boys being boys and men being men, just happens.

Christine Blasey Ford, who knew the risk she was taking—the horrific treatment of Anita Hill, all those years ago, remains a fresh wound—came forward anyway. Preemptively dismissed, even in anonymity (as a drunk, as a liar, as a partisan stooge, and as simply mistaken), Ford made herself public to issue a warning about a person seeking concentrated power over the lives and bodies of women. Her claims have been met by some with urgency and clarity: They must be investigated, many in power have said. But those claims have also been met, revealingly, with a collective shrug by people who see themselves in him but cannot see themselves in her. They weaponize their apathy. They are all Spartacus. They defend each other. And they defend a world in which—as a point of anxiety but also, it seems, as a point of pride—they can all be accused of something.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainme ... ium=social

By its hindsight definition, sexual assault is the norm. Back in college, I was "sexually assaulted" many times, by women. There was a ton of drinking. Women participated in that drinking willingly, and drugs too. There was a lot of sex. There were a lot of hook-ups. There was a lot of touching, and consent was rarely asked for - and I'm talking about women touching me and other men. I was never asked in advance by the girls who grabbed me under the table or near the bar in our fraternity house. However, most of what went on was not sexual assault, because most of the college students engaged in the activities were there willingly, and everyone was having fun. But, hindsight often changes things, and whether I was sexually assaulted or grateful for the girl's hand on my cock can be a function of whatever I want to report. If it upset me, it's sexual assault. If not, it was fun.

Nobody would credit an allegation by me 36 years later against a female candidate for the SCOTUS that she grabbed me by the balls and it bothered me - I was traumatized to the point of blocking it out and I did not tell a soul about it for more than 3 decades - I don't remember when it happened, where it happened, etc., and I didn't say anything to anyone then, and I didn't report it to the policy. After some therapy sessions, though, I realized how traumatizing it really was, and now that the woman who rubbed my ball sack is on her way to the SCOTUS, I think I owe it to the public to tell them that she rubbed my meat and two veg against my will 36 years ago. Since then, she's had an unblemished record of legal and judicial excellence and is eminently qualified for the position, but she tugged my todger without consent and I wouldn't lie about sexual assault. My memory, and my failing to mention it for three decades, that's all "consistent with" what someone does if they've been sexually assaulted - it doesn't matter that it's also consistent with someone who wasn't sexually assaulted - I should be believe and this is disqualifying for the candidate.

[laklak]

Is she saying these are recovered memories?

[Forty Two]

At first I thought yes - but, it's "not exactly." From what I gathered from the reports of what she reported, the therapy she attended made her realize or recognize or remember the trauma that resulted from the event.

She didn't mention it to anyone, she says, not a soul, for 30 years. But, she doesn't exactly say she didn't remember it or blocked it out, but I did read some articles where they say that she recovered or recognized the trauma that resulted.

[Tero]

20551D85-27A9-43B6-9DED-668AE965F150.jpeg (146.82 KiB) Viewed 2116 times

It’s just locker room talk!

[Brian Peacock]

TW: Too much truth.

I Revealed A Priest Abused Me 30 Years Ago. If I’m A Hero, Why Isn’t Christine Blasey Ford?

I think it's because the context is different. In the case of Blasey Ford, she never mentioned this for 30 years, and never said it was Kavanaugh for 36 years, and her recollections are vague. The disclosure also comes at a time when there is a motive for fabrication. Coming forward and revealing abuse that's 30 years old at time when there is no political or activist motive is different than when there is a motive. Further, the details matter, and if what you revealed about the priest is far more persuasive factually, then people would be more prone to accept the story as accurate. However, that being said, there have been false allegations made against priests, and there was a rash of "recovered memory" cases where innocent priests had their lives ruined by false accusations.

If, however, you were bringing this up now at a time when this priest was being considered for a high ranking position, and it was revealed that you didn't like this priest or supported his opposition, then some people would question whether your accusation was fabricated to further that interest.

What absolute and utter tosh. According to her own account she carried the matter with her for very many years and only began to come to terms with it when she undertook a period of therapy. So, what do you really think keeping quiet about an incident of abuse actually means, what does it show? Does it show that an incident was or must have been trivial, insignificant, inconsequential? That it's been recast, or misremembered, that the actions of alleged abuser have been misinterpreted, or that it's a sign of personal maliciousness, or sociopathic malignancy? Does past silence mean that raising it years later is unjustified and unjustifiable - because 'if it really happened' they could, would, and should have mentioned at the time, or at least by the following day, or by the following week, or the following month, or the following year, or the following decade? Do you not think that anyone making allegations of that nature about a man of Kavanaugh's position and status isn't fully aware of what's coming their way? About how people in politics and the media are going to downplay the matter, or excuse it, or turn the focus on their behaviour and put their actions and their character on trial, call them a liar, or crazy, or threaten them on Facebook etc? And yet people do this anyway. Do you think that shows a strength of character or signifies the dishonest, partisan, spiteful weakness of character your speculations seem keen to imply?