The Kavanaugh controversy

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The thing about Kavanaugh is, even though he is allowed to say he didn't do it, he is supposed to appear all contrite about anything happening to anyone anywhere ever. Then he is supposed to start promising all sorts of concessions and swear lifelong humility and loyalty to Feminism (tm).

C_G, I feel compelled to mention that I (and probably a lot of others) could do without your very clear total lack of concern for the harm done to both women and men (and children of both sexes) by sexual abuse. Certainly it seems a little excessive to sneer at other people's suffering. You probably know people, probably like and love people this has happened to.

And once again, Kavanaugh is all men and Ford is all women. No, I'm not sneering at all women or at all people who have suffered.

[Primula Baggins]

Sneering at Ford is enough for me. Seeing someone sneer at and dismiss a victim of sexual abuse is enough to hurt people who have also been victims. I would never ask you to go so far as to say anything supportive, but just know that your dismissive comments can be hurtful to past victims who read them. (I am not a past victim, but I know a number of them. There are far more of them than you think.)

[River]

This article has some conflicting reports about the limits of the investigation. The Democrats and the press should probably chill while things proceed, although they will undoubtedly not be satisfied whatever the scope of the investigation turns out to be. The purpose is to investigate the Ford and Ramirez allegations, not broadly look into Kavanaugh's entire history again. It is a background check, not a criminal investigation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... tt-n915061

Latest updates are also conflicting, though my impression is any action taken to widen the scope is being made to appease Flake. Which, in the current climate, is fair enough. I'm convinced that Flake made the move he did because 1) he's retiring and therefore has nothing to lose regarding angry pundits, donors, and constituents and 2) as a devout Mormon, he doesn't look at the tales of Kavanaugh's youthful debauchery and see anything of himself. He could listen to the upset women and hear the pain without taking it personally.

[Frelga]

He's one of the few Republicans congresspersons I can respect as a human while I disagree with them about most things.

So this is the latest, from NBC.

https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/stat ... 0109211653

Sen. Flake just said he is having discussions with the WH counsel to push for a more thorough FBI investigation, not just one to “give us cover.”

This follows Trump's tweet that he would support whatever investigation Republican Senators want.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor that there will definitely be a vote "this week" because "the time for delay and obstruction" has come to a close. It is unclear whether the Senate will even be briefed on the investigation before the vote, although I can't imagine that Flake (and presumably Collins and Murkowski) would vote to confirm without being briefed.

[Cerin]

The clamor on the left has made it clear, imo, that whatever the FBI does will be discredited as insufficient (unless they come up with some proof), so I can understand McConnell's attitude.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this article from GOP strategist Ana Navarro is worth posting in full.

I feel like a unicorn these days, because I did not oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court at first, but I do oppose it now. Why? Entirely because of the character issues raised about him.

Countless times, I heard some fellow Republicans say they found both Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh believable during last Thursday's hearings, and then come up with explanations that strain credulity to avoid taking her side. Maybe she was confused about who the boy was, they offered. They said the burden of proof was on her and since they were both equally credible, she hadn't met it. Give me a damn break. This is like when you get asked at a banquet if you want chicken or fish. It's one or the other, not both.

I do not oppose Kavanaugh now because he is more conservative than I am, particularly on social issues. Elections have consequences. A President gets to pick Supreme Court nominees who reflect ideology important to the President's party. Whether I like it or not -- and unless you've been under a rock for two years, you know I don't like it -- Donald Trump is President. Anyone he picks will come from a list of conservative jurists approved by the Federalist Society. All will be in the same ideological mold of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch shares a similar legal and educational background to Kavanaugh's, but was easily (though narrowly) confirmed. There is one important difference: Gorsuch did not get accused of sexual assault.

The ideology of a nominee, and factors like race, gender, ethnicity and creed, are all solely the President's choice. But there are other requirements for a Supreme Court appointment that should not be optional. A Supreme Court Justice should have intellectual heft, judicial temperament and lifelong fitness of character.

There is no doubt Kavanaugh meets the intellect requirement. And until two weeks ago, I also thought he had judicial temperament and fitness of character. He has gone through six FBI investigations and served on the federal bench for 12 years. People I know worked with Kavanaugh in the past and describe him as a "Mr. Rogers" type of guy. In his first hearings, he came across as calm and deliberative -- a cross between a Boy Scout and an altar boy.

That all changed once Professor Ford's allegations emerged.

Let me say clearly and unequivocally, I believe Christine Blasey Ford. Unless she is a clinical masochist, no woman in her right mind would willingly subject herself and her family to the threats and harassment that come with her actions. I believe her because years ago, she told her therapist and husband. I believe her because she has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from coming out. I believe her because so many victims of abuse stay silent for years and decades, but always carry it with them. I believe her because she is not a partisan activist. I believe her because during his hearing, Kavanaugh lied about little things he didn't need to. I believe her because his good friend, Mark Judge, wrote a book called, "Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk," which mentions a character named "O'Kavanaugh" he frequently got wasted with. I mean, come on, "Kavanaugh" is not exactly "Smith." I believe her because she took a polygraph, and he didn't. I believe her because he did not ask for the FBI investigation that could have helped clear his name. I believe her because many other classmates have come out to say he drank a lot. I believe her because of Kavanaugh's high school calendar listing the same names she said were at that house party. I believe her because I've had traumas in my life and I don't remember when and where exactly I was when they happened, but I remember they happened.

A lot of people think we should not define a person's entire life because of grave mistakes made as a teenager. I tend to agree with that. Kavanaugh is certainly not alone in doing things as a teenager that most of us as adults would rather forget.

But his nomination is for the Supreme Court. It is different than any other position in government. Once named, you can't be fired. You are not accountable to voters or even a President. It is a lifetime appointment. And unlike appointments to lower courts, there is no retirement age and impeachment is almost unheard of. All of this makes the standard for confirmation higher. We shouldn't be comparing the regrettable stuff we did in high school and college to the things Kavanaugh is accused of. We are not getting appointed to the Supreme Court to decide on legal issues affecting all Americans.

I now believe Kavanaugh lacks the judicial temperament and character to serve on the Supreme Court. In the last hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was screaming, crying, disrespectful and partisan. Except for the partisan part, if any woman behaved that way, people would blame it on hormones or call her hysterical. I am not one to criticize anyone for showing emotions. If you've ever seen me in action, you know I wear mine on my sleeve. But then again, the closest I'll ever come to the Supreme Court is posing for a selfie on the sidewalk with the Court as a backdrop.

In his testimony in front of the committee, Kavanaugh was a partisan attack dog. He showed resentment and disdain for Democrats. He questioned Senator Klobuchar about her drinking habits. He brought Trump's election into it. He blamed Professor Ford's allegations on Clinton allies seeking revenge for his role in the Starr investigation. I suspect if any of us had gone through what Kavanaugh has, including threats to his family, we'd be mad as hell, too. But again, this is for the Supreme Court. Justices are supposed to be free from external political pressures. Given what we heard from Kavanaugh and the emotional scars this process will leave him with, given his animosity for Democrats and his indebtedness to Republicans, would he ever be capable of judicial independence? Every Senator, regardless of party, should ask themselves that question.
Let's also be frank about the politics here. Even if Kavanaugh walked on water and could multiply fish, Democratic senators were going to vote against him based on ideology. There are also Republicans for whom ideology trumps everything. Whatever mistakes he may have made as a drunk teenager pale in comparison to the significance of a solid Conservative vote on the Supreme Court. They should be honest about it and say so, instead of doing verbal acrobatics saying they believe both the accuser and the accused.

There is one more factor to consider here: the message whatever happens next will send to millions of Americans who have been victims of sexual assault. Victims heard and saw themselves in Christine Blasey Ford. She blew open the floodgates. The calls into rape hotlines went up, some by as much as 338%. Victims everywhere shared the secret trauma and shame they had carried silently for years. Like the two women who confronted Jeff Flake on the elevator told him, confirming Kavanaugh means "my pain does not matter." Many women have told me the same. Fairly or unfairly, this has transcended Ford versus Kavanaugh. It has transcended Democrat versus Republican. It is about much more.

I don't think Kavanaugh is a monster. I don't think he is evil. My heart breaks for his parents, his wife and his little girls. By all accounts, most of his adult life, Kavanaugh has been a decent guy. The actions he is being accused of all happened over 30 years ago. When you are vying for a seat on the Supreme Court, youthful mistakes matter. Lying about those mistakes matters more. Lying about those mistakes under oath matters even that much more.

Often, when in midst of a fight, people can get so emotionally invested and entrenched in their positions, they lose sight of the forest for the trees. For the good of the country, for the integrity of the Court, Republicans should move on. Kavanaugh should withdraw.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/opinions ... index.html

[Dave_LF]

That may be the best thing I've read on the subject yet

[RoseMorninStar]

I think this article from GOP strategist Ana Navarro is worth posting in full.

(..article..)

Amen. That's exactly the point I was making in my earlier post.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The thing about Kavanaugh is, even though he is allowed to say he didn't do it, he is supposed to appear all contrite about anything happening to anyone anywhere ever. Then he is supposed to start promising all sorts of concessions and swear lifelong humility and loyalty to Feminism (tm).

C_G, I feel compelled to mention that I (and probably a lot of others) could do without your very clear total lack of concern for the harm done to both women and men (and children of both sexes) by sexual abuse. Certainly it seems a little excessive to sneer at other people's suffering. You probably know people, probably like and love people this has happened to.

You need to stop assigning motives to those you disagree with. I think it might even be against the TOS.

I am not sneering at Ford or at those who have been victimized.

If - IF - if I am sneering at anyone, it is those who are angry that Kavanaugh went off-script.

[Primula Baggins]

If I've done that, C_G, I apologize. Your tone on this topic can be hard for me to take.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I now believe Kavanaugh lacks the judicial temperament and character to serve on the Supreme Court. In the last hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was screaming, crying, disrespectful and partisan. Except for the partisan part, if any woman behaved that way, people would blame it on hormones or call her hysterical. I am not one to criticize anyone for showing emotions. If you've ever seen me in action, you know I wear mine on my sleeve. But then again, the closest I'll ever come to the Supreme Court is posing for a selfie on the sidewalk with the Court as a backdrop.

Assume you are accused of something you know you didn't do and there was no evidence to either prove guilt or innocence. It's just the word of another person -- and that word tears your life apart. What would YOU do? I frankly can't say what I'd do.

While I understand the need for people to seek justice and have their voices heard, by the same token, we should also think hard about those who cannot provide a good defense against accusations that have no objective evidence. This applies to both men and women. After all, how many women have been falsely accused of things they have never done? Just look at the cemeteries in Salem, Massachusetts.

Triggered? GOOD.

Shall I also add in the number of religious murders in the Mideast where women have been stoned to death on the mere accusation of adultery?

In his testimony in front of the committee, Kavanaugh was a partisan attack dog. He showed resentment and disdain for Democrats. He questioned Senator Klobuchar about her drinking habits.

Yes, that is basically true. She asked him about his drinking habits, so he asked her in turn. Quite off script.

There is one more factor to consider here: the message whatever happens next will send to millions of Americans who have been victims of sexual assault. Victims heard and saw themselves in Christine Blasey Ford. She blew open the floodgates. The calls into rape hotlines went up, some by as much as 338%. Victims everywhere shared the secret trauma and shame they had carried silently for years. Like the two women who confronted Jeff Flake on the elevator told him, confirming Kavanaugh means "my pain does not matter." Many women have told me the same. Fairly or unfairly, this has transcended Ford versus Kavanaugh. It has transcended Democrat versus Republican. It is about much more.

A repetition of the already debunked "Kavanaugh is all men, Ford is all women." A person can believe other women and doubt Ford.

Actually Ford's testimony would carry more weight if it weren't for the absurdity of certain later accusers.

Let me say clearly and unequivocally, I believe Christine Blasey Ford. Unless she is a clinical masochist, no woman in her right mind would willingly subject herself and her family to the threats and harassment that come with her actions.

Now THAT is a good point. Of course the same could be said about the two men who came forward and said that they did it and not Kavanaugh.

[Faramond]

What would I have done?

What reaction do I find normal or acceptable?

These questions are slippery and open ended, and admit a nearly endless variety of answers. And the answers we give usually do not say anything about the person we are supposedly judging. Instead they reveal our biases and perspectives.

But first, I am going to say something that is angry. I hope it is the only angry thing that I will say. It needs to be said, and I will say it as politely and respectfully as I can. But when you read this, you are right to interpret it as angry.

You cannot tell if someone is lying or telling the truth. Stop pretending you can. Stop posting links to people who think the have some special insight into who was or wasn't telling the truth as if it proves anything. It does not.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... ting-lies/

Oh wait, I'm not done. I cannot tell if someone is lying or telling the truth. I'm sure I've made the same mistake as many others. I have to be angry with myself too.

Now, wait -- I need to add an important qualifier. We may be able to assess credibility and truth-telling ( at least to some extent ) based on evidence. Also perhaps based on what we know is likely and unlikely -- but here I think we may start getting on shaky ground again if we're not careful. But never based on emotional state or "tells" or what the person makes us feel or how we think we would have acted. So, as gently as possible, I will say this -- when you ( or I ) say that Ford/Kavanaugh is believable/lying/truthful then you ( or I ) are full of ......... words that have no weight. These words just float up into the air, proving nothing, simply generating more heat and noise to add to the cacophony of our times.

Of course you are welcome to dismiss what I ( and 538 ) is saying but I really hope not.

The bottom line is this: look at the evidence. That is the way to the truth. Not our feeling of how believable someone is, or our interpretation of what we would have done instead.

Which takes me back to my initial questions. A lot of people are now constructing cases against Kavanaugh based on what they think a reasonable reaction for him is in response to being accused of sexual assault and gang rape. But this is entirely inappropriate. Some people would be clinical, detached. Some would be detached until they reached a breaking point. Some would be angry. There are a wide range of possible reactions and most of them are not "wrong" or "right". Most of them don't tell us anything about a person's innocence or guilt, or what sort of demeanor they will have when not being subject to attacks on his or her character. Most of the time the assessment seems to be based on how the personal already felt about Kavanaugh, in other words, the conclusion is already known, and then one reasons backward to justify the conclusion.

There is no need to resort to hypotheticals or extrapolations when it comes to the question of how Kavanaugh the judge would behave as a Supreme Court Justice. He has been a US Circuit judge on the court of appeals ( DC ) for 12 years. If he does not have a judicial temperament, his tenure here would likely show it. If he rules in a partisan way then this should show it. ( I think we should be clear that there is a difference from a judge being described as conservative or liberal and being overtly partisan. ) There is no need to try to extrapolate from his Senate hearing, which is after all not in any way the same as a case before a court of appeal. One thing is personal, the other is not.

I saw about the last half of Kavanaugh's testimony. My assessment of what I saw was that he performed, at best, average. I saw his exchange with Klobuchar and was not impressed by his answer or return question. At the same time I can understand his anger here, that somehow the fact that he ( by his own testimony ) drinks and has in the past drunk too much proves that he drank until he blacked out. The fact that I "understand his anger" of course does not prove anything, but neither does him "drinking too much" imply that it is likely he routinely or even ever drank until he blacked out. There is a pretty wide gap between being drunk and being blacked out -- a serious and often life-threatening gap. One of his answers that I found *really* annoying was when in response to a drinking question he would start talking about how hard he worked and getting into Yale and blah blah blah, but now that I'm thinking about it I *think* I may understand the point he was trying to make. How likely is it that someone who routinely would get "black-out" drunk would be able to be a "high-achiever"? This is not proof, of course, but if you tell me someone works hard and gets into good schools AND they drink too much sometimes, I'm not likely to conclude that they have ever gotten black-out drunk. But the truth is there is no proof one way or the other.

I would also say that trying to get into Ford's state of mind to prove something about how likely or unlikely it is that she is "lying" is invalid. It may be true ( and I think it is ) that very few people would make up a charge given the "cost" associated with bringing the charge, but that doesn't mean that no one would ever do it. All it takes is one outlier who does consider the cost worth it. Remember that the "reward" is potentially averting a *disaster* for the Supreme Court. I frankly think there are many people who would consider it worth it or almost worth it to prevent a conservative justice from being confirmed at this time, even at great personal cost. In truth, though, I don't think Ford is "making this up". But given the lack of any other evidence besides her own testimony, I find it very hard to say that it is likely that Kavanaugh is guilty. Especially given how common false memories are.

https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria ... collection

There are a lot more links I could post than this, by the way. So even if you are capable of determining from watching her testimony that she is absolutely telling the truth, even if you "believe her", this still doesn't mean that what she testified to is what actually happened. Same goes for Kavanaugh, of course. Even if you "believe him" and his testimony it doesn't mean his memory can't be faulty in some way.

The only path forward to is look at the evidence.

[Primula Baggins]

You make good points, Faramond (yes, before editing, I called you Faramir ) but I have a further question. What if, entirely aside from the truth or falsity of the sexual abuse allegations, it’s proved that Kavanaugh lied while testifying on Friday?

And, what if it’s proved that in July he was texting college friends trying to influence their responses to questions if they were called as witnesses?

I’m not asking this in relation to whether or not he’s guilty of Ford’s charges. What if he’s shown to have lied to Congress? Is that disqualifying?

[Faramond]

Yes, I think in general perjury or encouraging others to perjure themselves would be disqualifying.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, there was nothing in that post that remotely came across as "angry" to me. Strong opinions? Yes. Worth thinking about? Most definitely. Angry? I don't see it.

The only path forward to is look at the evidence.

Agreed, although as you know, even that is going to be colored by individual's inate biases.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Both Sen. Flake and even Mr. Trump himself have said that if it is shown that Judge Kavanaugh lied to Congress he should not be confirmed. However, there is at least one out and out falsehood that we know can be confirmed by solid evidence. Judge Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Hatch when he first learned of Debra Ramirez's allegations. "In the last — in the period since then, The New Yorker story,” Kavanaugh replied, referencing the Sept. 23 story about Ramirez’s allegations written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer." However, it has now come out that friends of Kavanaugh from his Yale years have provided text messages to the FBI showing that before that New Yorker story came out, Judge Kavanaugh was personally contacting people from his Yale years to get them to refute the allegations, thus making it clear that he knew about the allegations before the story was released.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ce-n915566

Is that enough of a lie to Congress to justify blocking his confirmation? I doubt they will think so.

Actually, to me the more significant part of that NBC news report about the text messages is the information that one of their mutual friends observed at a wedding ten years after they graduated from Yale that Ms. Ramirez was uncomfortable around Judge Kavanaugh.

Finally, Berchem is concerned about what she witnessed at the 1997 wedding where Ramirez and Kavanaugh were both in the wedding party.

According to the information Berchem provided, Ramirez tried to avoid Kavanaugh at that wedding of their two friends, Yarasavage and Kevin Genda. Ramirez, “clung to me” at the wedding, Berchem wrote to Yarasavage in a Sept. 24th text message. “She never went near them,” a reference to Kavanaugh and his friends. Even in the group photo, Berchem wrote, Ramirez was trying to keep away from Kavanaugh.

That, to me, provides some circumstantial corroboration of Ramirez's allegation.

[RoseMorninStar]

Trumps brother, Fred 'Freddy' Trump Jr., died in 1981 at the age of 43 from alcoholism/complications of alcoholism. It's been reported that he advised his younger brother (Donald) never to start drinking or smoking and he never did. Given the addiction & early death of his much loved brother, I wonder if that colors his opinion of this case, this nominee. Perhaps he feels the benefits Kavanaugh could bring to the court over-ride any misgivings.

I don't think any of us have ever heard 'I like beer' so often in a confirmation hearing. It was said so often it could have been (forgive me) a drinking game.

[elengil]

I don't think any of us have ever heard 'I like beer' so often in a confirmation hearing. It was said so often it could (forgive me) have been a drinking game.

yes, I'm cynical. I feel it was said so often 1. to stop any questions about whether he also drank, say, tequila shots, or whatnot, and 2. to simply stall out the time for questions. Why say 'yes' when you can talk for 2 minutes about how much you and your friends liked beer without ever actually answering the question?

[Cerin]

I find this trial by internet to be absolutely horrifying. It's good to be a nobody in this day and age.