Remember the Kavanaugh!! Republican war cry in defeating ruthless Dems

[Dugout DickStone]

I was buddies with a g'town prep grad when I lived out east.  He was a total stud.  Loved that guy

[catastrophe]

Would have been more rational to make the request when the FBI was beginning it’s work. Either in July or even 2006 when he was being confirmed.

she didn't get her accusation off before the buzzer.  tough luck for her, but you can't have a sport without rules.

We’re talking about rational behavior for a sexual assault victim. Timing of the accusation is not definitive but it’s clearly a relevant factor to consider when we’re evaluating the credibility of the accusation.

Or while some of us do at least. It’s pretty clear you’ve already made up your mind.

This is probably one of the most critical aspects of the #metoo movement. Women should feel empowered to bring their accusations sooner when there is an infinitely more likely possibility of backing it up with credible evidence.

Right now we have people struggling to remember if they actually recall certain events happening or if they just “seem like they could have.” There is also a serious concern of false memories that can be self reinforcing over time making it impossible for the victim to believe there was any other possibility of how the events transpired. It’s a crappy situation for everyone that I hope will happen less and less with victims feeling comfortable immediately reporting potential crimes.

[star seed 7]

Blame the victim for not speaking up sooner because 35 years later the metoo movement is happening. Amazing

[catastrophe]

Who’s blaming the victim?

[sonofdaxjones]

Always appreciate how LibBot7Dork just flat refuses to even consider that this might just be about politics.

A real free thinker.

[Rage Against the McKee]

They don’t have to lie. If you assume everyone knew it was going on, then when asked about it, there are only two outcomes: (1) they deny it, making them liars; or (2) they “admit” it, making them accomplices.

admitting it doesn't make them accomplices.  lying about it does make them liars.  it's pretty stupid to lie about something that is common knowledge.

Would you support confirmation of a judge who knew that dude was sexually harassing people but didn’t do anything about it like report the behavior? I wouldn’t. “Everyone else knew” is a pretty lame defense when you’re talking about the dignity or even safety of individuals.

Do you not support confirmation of Kavanaugh?

[catastrophe]

Reserving judgment depending on the testimony of Kav and Ford concerning her accusation (and obviously if any corroborating witnesses come forward).

I do not believe Kav knew about the Kozinski stuff.  If there's some evidence that he actually knew, I'd probably not support his confirmation.

[wetwillie]

More shady question answering.

https://twitter.com/BySteveReilly/status/1042899930174709760

That disclosure is so cringeworthy on multiple levels

[sys]

If you think my argument was based on the credibility of the reputation of the culture, you missed the point.

if you're talking about your chicago point, my response was pointing out how inane it was to compare drawing conclusions re. the likelihood of an event occurring based on an event likelihood being 0.00004 in one city or 0.00008 in another city vs drawing that conclusion based on multiple members of a very small group saying "we all (except uber-nerd gorsuch) did this all the time."

[sys]

Give me a second while I head over to the new goalpost location.

...if you believe this is an issue about investigating a 30+ year old crime, it seems that local authorities are in a much better position to do that.

And, again, they DID add the new allegations to the file.

i don't, as no one does, thinks this is about investigating a decades old state crime.  it is about evaluating the character of a nominee for a federal appointment.


since they DID add the new allegations to the file, it is obvious that the investigation is not completed and there is no impediment for them to further investigate allegations.

[sys]

Would you support confirmation of a judge who knew that dude was sexually harassing people but didn’t do anything about it like report the behavior?

if i otherwise approved of that judge, probably (if the facts were the same as what is currently known re. kav and koz, yes).  if the allegations were more egregious and/or the person was engaged in encouraging or abetting and not merely knowing of, then maybe no.

“Everyone else knew” is a pretty lame defense when you’re talking about the dignity or even safety of individuals.

you're the one who suggested that almost all lawyers would first keep silent and then lie about having known of it.  i have a little higher opinion of lawyers than you, it seems.

[sys]

This is probably one of the most critical aspects of the #metoo movement. Women should feel empowered to bring their accusations sooner when there is an infinitely more likely possibility of backing it up with credible evidence.

Right now we have people struggling to remember if they actually recall certain events happening or if they just “seem like they could have.” There is also a serious concern of false memories that can be self reinforcing over time making it impossible for the victim to believe there was any other possibility of how the events transpired. It’s a crappy situation for everyone that I hope will happen less and less with victims feeling comfortable immediately reporting potential crimes.

what a moving and totally rational passage here, where you simultaneously decry the insidious societal forces that lead to women not coming forward immediately with accusations of sexual misconduct and also dismiss a woman's accusations of sexual misconduct because she did not immediately come forward.

[sys]

I do not believe Kav knew about the Kozinski stuff.  If there's some evidence that he actually knew, I'd probably not support his confirmation.

you literally posted that everyone knew about it like two pages back.

[sys]

Reserving judgment depending on the testimony of Kav and Ford concerning her accusation (and obviously if any corroborating witnesses come forward).

while simultaneously arguing that witnesses should not be interviewed by the fbi to determine if they offer accounts that corroborate or exculpate.

[star seed 7]

Trumpublicans are just so gross

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1043212952881520640

[catastrophe]

This is starting to get unwieldly, which I think has contributed to you misreading several of my points.  So to clarify:

1. I did not say that everyone knew about Koz.  My response that it would DQ every judge was if you start with the assumption that everyone knew.  I completely disagree with that assumption.

2. I have not said anything dismissing the accusations of Ford.  I hope she testifies under oath in her own words.

3. I am not arguing the FBI should not investigate the accusations.  I do believe that at this point it is completely within their discretion, though, given the stage of the proceedings.  If every citizen had a vote, I'd vote for an investigation if it could be done in a reasonable time frame.  But I would not support continual one-off requests for investigation into all kinds of other things.

[Spracne]

I am Catastrophe

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[sys]

1. I did not say that everyone knew about Koz.  My response that it would DQ every judge was if you start with the assumption that everyone knew.  I completely disagree with that assumption.

no one made that assumption, which is probably why no one here understood your assertion based on the false assumption that people were making that assumption.

2. I have not said anything dismissing the accusations of Ford.  I hope she testifies under oath in her own words.

right, but for some reason you are arguing against having the fbi interview the people that may be able to corroborate or falsify her account.  that is not consistent with a good faith effort to uncover the truth of her allegations.  you are de facto insisting that the only result you will accept is a he said, she said standoff.

3.I do believe that at this point it is completely within their discretion, though, given the stage of the proceedings. 

apparently, based both on reporting and the fact that they aren't now conducting that investigation, someone has to ask them to do it.  if someone had asked them to do so early this week, it'd be completed by now.

[Kat Kid]

I distinctly remember the shame heaped upon Sotomayor for being a "spender not a saver" at the time was pretty loud.

I haven't heard any paternalistic finger wagging from Mankiw on Kavanaugh this time around and Kavanaugh's finances have been completely glossed over and I haven't seen a single reasonable answer for any of the weird stuff brought up including his $200K baseball ticket debt.

http://time.com/money/2792602/sonia-sotomayor-a-spender-not-a-saver/

[Spracne]

The left is pointing to the Bush administration's 3-day investigation as a model. Lol at the assertion that the left wouldn't attack and discredit a 3-day investigation that doesn't end up DQ'ing Kav.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[sys]

I distinctly remember the shame heaped upon Sotomayor for being a "spender not a saver" at the time was pretty loud.

I haven't heard any paternalistic finger wagging from Mankiw on Kavanaugh this time around.

i am happy to judge both sotomayor and kavanaugh as spendthrifts.  it is appalling and in a just world they would be cast aside for better, more frugal persons.

[sys]

The left is pointing to the Bush administration's 3-day investigation as a model. Lol at the assertion that the left wouldn't attack and discredit a 3-day investigation that doesn't end up DQ'ing Kav.

there isn't much to investigate.  interview the named witnesses, maybe interview a few classmates if ford can recall telling anyone.  there's no reason it would take more than a couple days.

[Spracne]

And if/when nothing comes of it, the left will just totally accept the job done by Trump's FBI?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

And if/when nothing comes of it, the left will just totally accept the job done by Trump's FBI?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The left would be wrong not to.

[sys]

And if/when nothing comes of it, the left will just totally accept the job done by Trump's FBI?

i think most of them would.  i'm sure there might be some voices that diverge, but i'm reasonably confident the mainstream left would not blame the fbi of shoddy work or accuse the fbi of having been directed to a political result.

that's not to say they would suddenly support kavanaugh - they opposed him based on his positions beforehand, and logically would continue to do so.

and if the investigation returned nothing to substantially corroborate or exculpate, it is likely that those on the left who currently feel that the unsubstantiated allegation is sufficient to cause prudent senators to vote against him would continue to feel that way.  that too, would be logical - an investigation that does not provide new information would not lead persons to change their pre-investigation opinions.



we should definitely let the fbi investigate and find out, however.  if it does turn out that a bunch of liberals attack the investigation, i'll happily join you in making fun of them.