I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

...continued

Trying to have it both ways is how we end up with preposterous "mistaken identity" theories pushed by an ex-law clerk of Scalia's (Whelan), Republican PR firms, right-wing media and Republican senators and ensnaring some bystander. How upset aren't Kavanaugh supporters about that?

I mean, Jesus, if you think a woman accusing a man of sexual misconduct with no corroborating evidence is bad, what do you think about the Republicans implying the guilt of a man who hasn't been accused of assault by an alleged victim so that they can avoid calling Ford a liar?

Where's all the right-wing outrage about that?

I was upset by it. Thought is was disgusting...as did many others I've discussed that point with.

...ginsburg...

She shouldn't have said it. It was a mistake. For Kavanaugh, the same. Blaming the Clintons was a mistake.

Small potatoes. Either they are both unfit, or neither is, on this basis.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Got something for you that explains your issue:

Bubble Busting Breaking News ..........

Senator Collins and Senator Manchin are voting "YES" for Kavanaugh !!!!!!!!!!

Collins set the BS record straight in a floor speech.

Protesters going nuts !!!!

The dogs are running wild.

😎😁😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bubble Busting Breaking News ..........

Senator Collins and Senator Manchin are voting "YES" for Kavanaugh !!!!!!!!!!

Collins set the BS record straight in a floor speech.

Protesters going nuts !!!!

The dogs are running wild.

😎😁😎

SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME... bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

"Invest in manufacturers of wire coat hangers" - Brett Kavanaugh...

a reply to: JBurns

Thank you.

In the end, I still hope that cooler heads will eventually prevail.

The circus needs to end.

a reply to: loam

Or maybe many on the right, despite what you or others on the left would otherwise have the world believe to be true, actually believe that an accuser of alleged sexual abuse deserves the initial presumption that they are telling what they believe to be true. In other words, an honest allegation.

What most people then expect is a fair vetting of the accusation. You know, that due process thing you think is just a convenient political slogan for the right, but which many on the left clearly don't support now.

Who ever said folks on the Right don't virtue signal? That's all swell but what's it actually got to do with what I said? Whatever their beliefs on an "initial presumption" that an accuser's allegation is true may be, what I said was that Republicans who are calling Ford's allegation a "political smear job" are also not calling Ford a liar.

I was quoting Grambler here of course with "smear job" but it and equivalent phrases like "political hit job" and "smear campaign" have been used by McConnell, Grassley, Graham and others as well as Kavanaugh himself.

To have "smear campaign" or a "smear job" there is a requirement for a smear. What is a smear? The Oxford dictionary defines it thus: A false accusation intended to damage someone's reputation. So in order to have a "smear job"/"smear campaign" etc, there must be a false accusation intended to damage a person's reputation.

Right?

So how can one simultaneously believe that Kavanaugh is the victim of a "smear job" — that a false allegation has been made to damage his reputation — but also claim to believe Ford? Setting aside amazing cognitive dissonance, logically, the only way that could be remotely possible is to believe that Ford believes the allegation she made but that she's mistaken. Hence the disgusting mistaken identity business from Whelan. But even that's not enough because importantly, a "smear" isn't just a false allegation, it's one made with the intent to defame.

What's that leave us with? There's only really one narrative that allows both and makes sense. And that narrative is that Ford is mistaken and that Democrats are using her to damage Kavanaugh's reputation (and through that, cause him to not be confirmed). That's not even the end of it because for it to be a "smear job" in that scenario, the Democrats, led by Feinstein must also know or the very least, believe, that Ford's allegation is false.

So anyone saying that they both believe Ford and also that it's a "smear job" should be prepared to argue that Ford is mistaken about her allegation for [insert reason], that Feinstein/Democrats know that her allegation is false, and that knowing this, Feinstein/Democrats used it to defame Kavanaugh.

So he was certainly identified. First on the list, in fact, with most reporting. Ford confirms this by saying:

Yes, I know all that and what I said was that he hadn't been nominated yet.

So by your logic, Ford could only have been motivated by the truth. She was a successful woman... She had a reputation to protect... She accused Kavanaugh before the actual nomination...

No. Here's what I said again in summarizing my point:

"In short, she doesn't come off as somebody who would be trying to smear anyone. "

I have no position whatsoever about whether or not Ford's allegation is true. I was suggesting an answer to my question above which was "Why is this?" (why are they contorting themselves "to frame Ford's allegation as a 'political smear job' without calling Ford a liar")

But you give no consideration to other possible motives. Maybe she had a personal grudge that had nothing to do with her public allegations and simply saw an opportunity to scuttle Kavanaugh, regardless of where he was in the process. If he wasn't the actual nominee and she could do it anonymously, where was the risk to her?

Or maybe she did have a political grudge, and decided to lob a false accusation across the fence, hoping that with nothing more, it might stick.

Any potential motive Ford could have had for lying is irrelevant to why a person would both claim to believe Ford and also claim that there's a "smear job."

Who knows? You certainly don't.

None of that could be explored in the circus we all witnessed.

Republicans shouting from the rooftops that "it's a smear job!" did nothing to create that circus atmosphere?

But for you, her 'success' and 'risk of loss' are despositive. The fact that lots of smart and successful people do dumb (illegal) things all of the time, appears not to be a consideration at all for you.

I did not say that her success or any risks to her reputation she might incur were dispositive. As I responded above (and if you re-read what I posted originally, it should be clear), I was opining about why she might come off as a person who wouldn't be expected to make a smear and how that could present a problem for Republicans calling her a liar.

Quite right, which makes how it played out even more suspicious.

Let's be honest here. If her story HAD been corroborated by others, like Leland Keyser or by even someone who remembered driving her home, we'd be having an entirely different discussion and Kavanaug's nomination would likely be toast.

I don't see how Keyser remembering driving her home would have substantiated the significant portions of her claim. Kavanaugh is not refuting that he knew Ford and he's not discounting the possibility that he'd been at a party with her. Absence knowledge of the alleged assault at the time, I wouldn't expect anyone to have a specific recollection of a handful of people hanging out in high school some three and a half decades prior. Would you? I'm assuming I'm fairly normal and there would have been possibly a couple hundred of such events during my four years of high school and unless something remarkable happened, why would I remember details of any one of them? And for me, it's only been a little over 20 years.

More likely, Feinstaiein didn't bring it forward because there was no corroborating evidence and the accuser didn't want to come forward. But someone on the left certainly forced their hand.

Finally, a point that we can almost totally agree on. With or without agreeing to confidentiality, one would be very hard pressed bringing an allegation to committee from an accuser who didn't want to come forward. It's also most plausible that somebody on the Left leaked to The Intercept. I think it's reasonable to assume that the purpose of the leak was to force somebody's hand, most likely Fords.

It's at least also possible that Ford herself directed the leak to give herself a reason to come forward.

(continued)

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Secondly, I've never done any of things Kavanaugh is accused of doing. Except, I have been black out drunk once to twice in my life, but Kavanaugh denies that he ever has.

Oh, I get it so when you deny accusations you are telling the truth and you should be believed - even if a woman is your accuser. But when Kavanaugh does it he is actually a liar and is guilty.

It is inconceivable to me how you can not see how moronic your statement is. For god sake's THINK.

The entire point is NOBODY HAS PROVED KAVANAUGH DID ANYTHING!

a reply to: loam

Moreover, it's not like we didn't have a process that when the accusation first came to the attention of any member of the committee, it could have been confidentially shared with the entire committee, a further investigation held on the merits of the accusation, and then a final judgement voted upon by the committee.

That would have been preferable but it's not what happened though. Somebody is ultimately responsible for it and we don't know who. I'd honestly like to know who it was. One, because if it wasn't Ford herself, somebody did this woman a grave disservice. Two, because it was quite possibly a single leaker and as it stands, in the absence of anything definitive, it's being used to smear "the Left", Democrats, etc. I say smear here because while as few as one person might have been behind the leak, or possibly a small cadre — none of whom are identified — the allegation is being made against a whole big bunch of people, 99.999999% of whom did not leak anything.

Instead, we got a public spectacle, with no meaningful investigation, designed to inflict the maximum possible political damage. THAT had nothing to do with finding out the truth.

Do you honestly believe that NONE of that can be attributed to Senate Republicans, particularly from the Judiciary?

The means simply justified the end...denying Trump's appointment to the court. If a man's life and reputation were unjustifiably ruined, so be it.

Now that's a statement laden with presumptions: that Kavanaugh didn't do what Ford accused, that the leaker didn't believe Ford, that the motive had anything to do with Trump, that the motive was even to stop the confirmation (though, I'm certainly not admitting that it seems far and away the most plausible motive) and that the leaker accurately anticipated the ensuing #show.

It could have been one true believer on somebody's staff who thought this was the last best way to get Ford in front of the committee. I don't believe that's particularly implausible and unless you know something I don't about what transpired here, I don't think you can reasonably assert what you just have.

It's a smear job because the democrats on the committee, and whoever leaked it, didn't care if Ford's allegations where true or not.

That's at best an opinion. You have to see that. Do you remember just admonishing me with that bit about how many Republicans do believe that accusers should be heard and their accusations considered fairly at the start of your reply?

Haven't you done basically just done what you were admonishing me for (unfairly, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who do give fair treatment to accusations regardless of politics) by declaring that "Democrats on the committee, and whoever leaked it" didn't care if Ford's allegations were true or not?

That's as if I said that Republicans on the committee believed Ford and voted Kavanaugh out of committee anyway because they simply didn't care.

From your second post:

I was upset by it. Thought is was disgusting...as did many others I've discussed that point with.

I'm glad we can agree. I know a lot of people are genuinely concerned that firsthand allegations from alleged victims are giving too much consideration. I'm not a fan of the whole "every woman must be believed absolutely" mob mentality but I also believe that false accusations pale by comparison to the silence from legitimate victims and so we have to listen to women and we have to give allegations serious consideration even if it means that a much much smaller number of false allegations are given a platform.

She shouldn't have said it. It was a mistake. For Kavanaugh, the same. Blaming the Clintons was a mistake.

Agreed.

Small potatoes. Either they are both unfit, or neither is, on this basis

I don't know that they're equal. I don't expect Kavanaugh to have high opinions of Democratic Presidents but he's about to be confirmed and will be starting out his SCOTUS career on the heels of a very emotional pronouncement that for all intents and purposes, the whole Democratic party tried to destroy him and somehow caused his family to receive death threats.

It's actually even worse if he's completely innocent of Ford's allegation. Can you honestly say you don't think he's going to harbor a lot resentment for at least some time or that you'd be completely shocked if he doesn't have a lifelong grudge?

That's another reason why I hope we find out who leaked to The Intercept. Then he's got an actual target on which to focus whatever emotions and not just "Democrats."

I mean, Peter Strzok made some disparaging remarks about Trump to his side piece and you can't find a conspiracy that Trump supporters won't readily believe about him because his presumably out-sized bias. Imagine hiring him to head up the FBI tomorrow.

Anyway, his confirmation is foregone conclusion now. I wonder how this whole fiasco will feature in the next month's rhetoric/propaganda going into the midterms? Strong potential for both parties using different aspects to energize the base.

I'm torn between the conflicting urges to hound every left-leaning/centrist person I know to get out and vote straight Democrat and unplugging everything until it's over.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam


I'm torn between the conflicting urges to hound every left-leaning/centrist person I know to get out and vote straight Democrat and unplugging everything until it's over.

Don’t be torn... unplug... decompress... cry it out... stay in your safe space and I’ll let you know if it’s safe to come out in 2024... 😜👍

originally posted by: carlncarl
a reply to: mysterioustranger

how would the truth come out if you don't respond?

when you do respond, if you sit there calmly after days of accusations you actually look more guilty.

there are no reports of him having any type of temper problem when doing his job as a judge.

I would say by not reaching across the floor and slapping spartacus for the interrogation on the high school yearbook he showed an unbelievable amount of restraint.

A person that lacks emotion or empathy would be a very poor choice since it would be difficult to understand an issue in in its entirety, otherwise we could just make robots do the judging.

Itsm only to be mentioned ...we don't see much emotion exhibited nor stated publicly by our S.Court, whom usually are stocic and reserved in any face of adversity....

I can only remember judge Thomas in this instance...responsive, stoic, calm...

I always believed they should remain that way...even in the face of personal attacks...guilty or not.

Let the accusers rant, rave, point fingers...because if it isn't true, and if they are sure they aren't guilty...the truth will prevail...either way.

I actually think it's a little of both.

a reply to: loam

Nixon said "I am NOT a crook!"- he was

Clinton said "I DID NOT have sexual relations with..."- he did.

Just stressing my previous point/reply