Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Hearing

[AmazonGrace]

They're going to get away with it by  arguing she was confused about who attacked her and blame a guy who looked a bit similar on the yearbook 

 

[fraurosena]

GOP mulling this over? Huh. They’re trying to come up with excuses why they won’t, you mean.

 

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

It would be a civil lawsuit, so the FBI wouldn't be involved. And, who would remove him? The Repug congress? I think not.

 

Maybe not defamation, but attempted rape and kidnapping? Laurence Tribe and Rachel Maddow say that’s a possibility. FBI investigation or police investigation wouldn’t matter in a Court of law. I agree with you that it won’t matter to the GOP no matter what, though.

 

 

 

[fraurosena]

Sad but true.

 

 

[Audrey2]

5 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Sad but true.

 

 

I'm glad someone else made this point. I've been thinking the same thing for a week, but couldn't find the right words to post it. The double standard disgusts me.

[Howl]

There is something to note about Kavanaugh's finances that was in either a HuffPo or Mother Jones article linked upthread.   After discussing the disappearance of  substantial  debts combined with a high burn rate (expensive house with big down payment and mortgage, kids in expensive private school, expensive country club, etc) the article finally noted that respondents on financial disclosure forms need not list financial support from family.  In other words, if Kavanaugh was bailed out by his very wealthy parents, he need not disclose that fact or the amount given.  

It also noted that if the latter scenario was true, from a PR standpoint one might want to suppress that information, because parental support at that stage of life makes a candidate seem weak.  I felt a little jerked around and manipulated by that article, because it emphasized the most salacious scenarios (possible gambling addiction, political bribery) and left a likely explanation (family assistance) as an afterthought. But who knows, it could be all of the above. 

Anyway, here's something that I'm always intrigued by.  Let's just take Rick "Frothy" Santorum and rapey Brett Kavanaugh.  Both are Catholic, neither believe in birth control, yet they have small families.  Rick and wife have just five and Kavanaugh has just TWO!  Who knows, maybe both wives had to have hysterectomies before they could crank out 10 or 12 or 15 kids, but we know what it looks like when fundy families forego birth control and let God decide.  And us older folks remember the local Catholic families that regularly cranked out 8 to 10 kids without a lot of effort. 

[Howl]

 

[Howl]

Soooooo, regular women can do a pretty damn good job of doing internet research, on, for example, some of the 65 women who signed the letter of support for Brett "he's such a GREAT guy" Kavanaugh.  Here's the start of a great thread. 

 

[AmazonGrace]

This is a sham 

 

 

[Emilycharlotte]

The thing is, accused people are entitled to due process. They are presumed innocent. They have the right to face their accuser, to present a defense, to cross-examine the accuser under oath...and there has to be EVIDENCE.  

It isn’t about politics. The idea that a man can his life and reputation destroyed, and possibly lose his freedom, because of an unsubstantiated accusation should be terrifying to everyone.

[nausicaa]

5 hours ago, Howl said:

Anyway, here's something that I'm always intrigued by.  Let's just take Rick "Frothy" Santorum and rapey Brett Kavanaugh.  Both are Catholic, neither believe in birth control, yet they have small families.  Rick and wife have just five and Kavanaugh has just TWO!  Who knows, maybe both wives had to have hysterectomies before they could crank out 10 or 12 or 15 kids, but we know what it looks like when fundy families forego birth control and let God decide.  And us older folks remember the local Catholic families that regularly cranked out 8 to 10 kids without a lot of effort. 

Unlike Quiverfulls, Catholics are allowed to practice NFP. If their wives were very diligent in how they tracked their hormones and cycle, they should have had about the same effectiveness rate with avoiding undesired pregnancies via NFP as a lot of other methods. (Not saying Santorum in particular isn't a hypocritical douche, but on this one he does have a defense.)

If we're only looking at the mechanics, NFP is fairly effective. Where it lags behind barrier methods in overall effectiveness is convenience, knowledge required, forgiveness of operator error, and biological changes over the years. 

[nausicaa]

1 hour ago, Emilycharlotte said:

The thing is, accused people are entitled to due process. They are presumed innocent. They have the right to face their accuser, to present a defense, to cross-examine the accuser under oath...and there has to be EVIDENCE.  

It isn’t about politics. The idea that a man can his life and reputation destroyed, and possibly lose his freedom, because of an unsubstantiated accusation should be terrifying to everyone.

I know. I am beginning to feel frustration with both sides on this issue and have just begun to check out. 

The complete neglect of due process from some in the #metoo movement is irrational and sets a dangerous precedent. However, I feel that many on the Right clearly have ulterior motives and are not just defending due process in good faith, but also are defending Kavanuagh's accused actions. Some of their arguments just show how completely ignorant people still are about rape. And the excuses by the likes of Franklin Graham make me sick. 

I do think he has the right to face his accuser, hear her testimony, and present his defense. That is how a rational, rule of law society works. I realize he isn't facing prison, however losing out on an insanely prestigious position is a pretty serious consequence to face *if* one is innocent (if he is guilty, of this or helping Ed Whelan concoct that crazy ass story, or of only hiring hot female employees, I have zero issue tossing him out on his butt).

On the other hand, it is so, so difficult in these cases to present enough evidence to prove a victim's case. We all know the numbers on how rarely rapists get convicted.

I genuinely don't know what the answer is in cases like this.

[SilverBeach]

2 hours ago, Emilycharlotte said:

The idea that a man can his life and reputation destroyed, and possibly lose his freedom, because of an unsubstantiated accusation should be terrifying to everyone.

There was a time, in the South, when any white woman could accuse any black man or boy of the smallest infraction (whistling- see Emmett Till), and he would be lynched whether he did it or not. Forget losing reputation or freedom, these people lost their lives. As such, I am attuned to the value of due process, and find the recent events surrounding Chris Hardwick somewhat problematic.

On the other hand, having been sexually molested and harassed myself, by men who knew better than to do it in front of witnesses, I know that an unsubstantiated accusation can indeed reflect the truth. Sexual crimes are characteristically different, and coming forward has traditionally cost the victim a great deal in terms of her life and reputation (job loss and blackballing, for two examples). Not to mention the irrational shame that many sex crime victims feel.

It is good that in the case of mass rapists like Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, there are so many victims that enough evidence can be compiled to prosecute at least a few of the cases. But what about when the reported incident is singular? Or in the context of a long-term relationship where we are hearing only one side of it as with Chris Hardwick? Believing the victim is sometimes the right thing to do, even absent hard evidence. However, there is a risk of wrongful condemnation and that is no good either.

And there damn sure is an ulterior motive with Kavanaugh. I lived through the Anita Hill hearings, and that asshole Clarence Thomas was confirmed anyway. Like Kavanaugh's accuser, she was impeccable yet still deemed not credible by the old white men on the senate judiciary committee at that time. Total bullshit. How about finding someone without any sexual black marks on their record to nominate for a seat on the highest court in the land? And people wonder why women don't come forward sooner when even the most highly regarded of women aren't believed.

[nausicaa]

5 hours ago, Howl said:

Soooooo, regular women can do a pretty damn good job of doing internet research, on, for example, some of the 65 women who signed the letter of support for Brett "he's such a GREAT guy" Kavanaugh.  Here's the start of a great thread. 

That woman does not provide any of her research--so really she could be making all of her claims up. She also refers to people as "provokunts" and "traitortwats" in that same "great thread." Hardly the next Ronan Farrow. 

And one of her claims (again, only a claim since she does not feel the need to provide any proof) for not believing one of the women is that "her husband commits adultery." That's misogynistic bullshit on par with Trump's comments. A woman's spouse's actions should not reflect on that woman's judgment.

[SilverBeach]

38 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I do think he has the right to face his accuser, hear her testimony, and present his defense. That is how a rational, rule of law society works.

A confirmation hearing for a potential supreme court justice is not a legal proceeding.

45 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I genuinely don't know what the answer is in cases like this.

Hopefully rape culture will change and these cases will not be as common. I'm not holding my breath though.

[nausicaa]

3 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

A confirmation hearing for a potential supreme court justice is not a legal proceeding.

It is not. However, I think it makes sense to follow well-established arbitration traditions of our country that make sense on their own terms even outside of the judicial system. 

6 minutes ago, SilverBeach said:

Hopefully rape culture will change and these cases will not be as common. I'm not holding my breath though.

Agreed and agreed 

[AmazonGrace]

If Kavanagh wanted to do this proper legal-like he should be the one demanding an investigation I think. He just wants to throw some misogyny around

[GreyhoundFan]

[Cartmann99]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[Cartmann99]

Trump HUD Secretary Ben Carson claims Kavanaugh allegations are part of a centuries old socialist plot

Quote

.Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson told an audience of conservative activists on Friday that the sexual assault allegations facing President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court are part of a plot by socialists to take over America that dates back more than a century.

"If you really understand the big picture of what's going on, then what's going on with Kavanaugh will make perfectly good sense to you," Carson said at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington. "There've been people in this country for a very long time, going all the way back to the Fabians, people who've wanted to fundamentally change this country."

The term "Fabians" refers to the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization that was founded in the 19th century, and which today functions as part of the UK's Labour Party. An American chapter of the Fabian society was established in 1895 in Boston, but it is no longer active in the United States.

Nonetheless, Carson vividly described what he claimed the ideological descendants of the Fabians were plotting, and how Professor Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in the 1980s fit into the plot.

"They don't like what America is and what it represents, and they want to change us to another system. In order to do that, there are three things they must control: the education system, the media, and the courts.The first two of those they have," Carson said. "The other they thought they had, but it was snatched out from under their noses in November of 2016."

Now, Carson continued, these forces "are like wet hornets, just completely lost control off the deep end, and the further they get away from being able to control the courts the more desperate they become," he said. "They don't see themselves as being able to control the courts for another generation, so what is left? Chaos and destruction."

There is no basis for Carson's claim that socialists are plotting to take over American civic institutions. A spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development did not immediately return a call from CNBC Friday seeking clarification of Carson's remarks.

Carson's comments were also noteworthy in that he was among the first members of Trump's Cabinet to directly address the allegations, which have divided the nation and, increasingly, threaten to divide the Republican party. The allegations were first reported to two Democratic lawmakers in July, but only became public this month, as Kavanaugh's confirmation seemed all but assured.

Kavanaugh has denied assaulting Ford, and he has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the allegation. As of Friday afternoon, representatives for Ford were still negotiating terms under which the California psychology professor would be willing to testify before the committee about what she says was a violent attempted rape in 1982.

A few hours before Carson spoke on Friday, Trump abandoned the uncharacteristic restraint he had shown in recent days when discussing the allegation. The president attacked Ford directly by accusing her of exaggerating what happened, and accusing Democratic lawyers and operatives of plotting to ruin Kavanaugh.

Establishment Republicans were quick to distance themselves Friday from Trump's remarks. But Carson took them a step further. Not only did he frame the sexual assault allegation in the context of a plot with its roots in the Fabian Society, but he also expressed concern that the allegations against Kavanaugh might deter "good people" from seeking positions in government in the future.

"The fearful part is that good people will be afraid to serve their government," Carson told the Values Voters audience. "They won't want to take a chance of their reputation being sullied."

"Sexual predators is abominable," Carson quickly added, and there is "no room for it as far as I'm concerned."

"Having said that, we must always recognize there are two sides to every story. And I can particularly identify" with Kavanaugh, he continued. The secretary then recounted an episode of his life when he was falsely accused of fathering a child out of wedlock. This experience, Carson said, was the reason that he could identify with Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh is expected to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

 

[AmazonGrace]

When Ben Carson operated on people's brains he wasn't trying to cure them, he was just looking for his own 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]