Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

[Rubee]

What were you wearing? What was he wearing? What was Mr. Judge wearing? Then check the old photographs to see whether you can corroborate such clothes. What did the room look like? Did the door open in or out? Did you turn right or left when you left? Where were the stairs? What door did you use? Did you exit toward the street or the side or back yard? Were there any trees? Was there a garden? What cars did you see? Was a dog or cat at the party? Then you try to find a house that fits that description. What music was playing? Was there a game on tv? Were people playing party games? Which ones? Who won? Was there any drama about who was dating whom? What things do you remember people talking about at the time? What was on your mind at school? Were you worried about homework or a test? When you thought about the incident in the following weeks, were you sitting in your desk at school, or in a canoe at summer camp, or what? Did anything “trigger” the incident in your mind at later events? Did family members or friends ever say things that you took the wrong way because of what happened to you? Tell me about that. Does that make you remember anything? Then you check out those details.

So, in other words, the same thing done by the prosecutor already? Again, please note, unlike the Senate hearings, none of these people has to talk to the FBI.

 

[Godfollower]

So, in other words, the same thing done by the prosecutor?

I wasn’t aware that she then went out and checked the details of the answers she was given. I also wasn’t aware that she questioned Judge Kavanaugh.

 

[Augustinian]

What were you wearing? What was he wearing? What was Mr. Judge wearing? Then check the old photographs to see whether you can corroborate such clothes.

Ms. Ford didn’t say where “where” is, or “when” it happened. Those questions you mention don’t have answers, as Judge et al say it didn’t happen.

Really, at this point in time, if I were Mr. Judge or any other non-witness to an event I said didn’t happen 35 years ago, I wouldn’t speak a syllable to the FBI, concerned they might want to finger me for “obstruction” or “lying”

 

[Godfollower]

Again, please note, unlike the Senate hearings, none of these people has to talk to the FBI.

So they shouldn’t even try?

The goal isn’t to “win” the nomination process. The goal is to find out what happened and then make a moral determination as to whether this man should be given a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court.

Someone has come forward with a credible accusation of a serious charge. So check into it! Don’t sweep it under the rug!

 

[HarryStotle]

There are many, many, many questions that can be asked; and the details can then be checked. Neither she nor he will remember the answers to every question. And, even among the answers you get, not all of them will be subject to confirmation. Time has run, and things have changed. But you can start to piece together holes in the story of one or both of them; and that can lead you to the truth.

And the truth will set you free.

The “not knowing” cuts both ways. The fact that it was so long ago makes it difficult for Ford to recall details, but also very difficult to defend against the allegations because very few witnesses would or could recall those details, which advantages Ford since she could claim virtually anything and no one could defend against those claims.

As it is her recall of details isn’t exactly consistent, which is why she has virtually no case, except in the eyes of those predisposed to believe her.

By the way, not having been there is another reason why “he” would not remember the details.

 

[Rubee]

I wasn’t aware that she then went out and checked the details of the answers she was given. I also wasn’t aware that she questioned Judge Kavanaugh.

Have you seen her report, by the way? Zerohedge

SHE didn’t question Kavanaugh but he certainly was questioned, was he not? And again, with no date or place, about what would he have been questioned that could be checked against Dr. Ford’s account?

 

[Rubee]

So they shouldn’t even try? The goal isn’t to “win” the nomination process. The goal is to find out what happened and then make a moral determination as to whether this man should be given a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. Someone has come forward with a credible accusation of a serious charge. So check into it! Don’t sweep it under the rug!

“Trying” is what’s been happening with the testimonies under oath. You consider it a non-event when it was an investigation, that’s what puzzles me. The FBI probe would make sense if things came out from the Senate hearings that could be checked out in the manner you describe. Again, no place, no time, witnesses say it never happened. What are they checking for?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But now it is public. If they do not confirm him, they will in effect ruining this man’s life.

Once one becomes a public figure, he becomes fair game for books, articles, etc. The Senate didn’t make him a public figure.

That has nothing to do with my point. They could have handled this investigation privately & confidentiality. If guilty, then they could have chosen to tell the public. But they didn’t have to do the investigation so publicly.

That was my point.

 

[Godfollower]

Suppose they find two dozen witnesses who testify under oath (none of this I-gave-a-letter-from-my-lawyer-to-a-reporter stuff) that Judge Kavanaugh was regularly drinking to the point of passing out during that time period, and that all the girls knew to avoid him when he was drunk. Or suppose that they find two dozen witnesses who testify under oath that Dr. Ford falsely accused a couple of other boys of sexual assault in the past.

Would even that seem relevant to you? Or are you satisfied with a mere show trial to check the box so they can claim they listened to the woman accusing him of this horrible crime and then continue as if nothing had happened?

The point of an actual investigation is to investigate. That’s how you find the evidence that you didn’t know about before. Claiming that an investigation is unnecessary because it won’t find anything is backwards.

 

[Godfollower]

And you’re absolutely right; this could have — should have — been handled so much better than it was. It was unfair to both of them. But we’re stuck with the hand we were dealt, and we have to go forward from here. So, at this point, we have to do the best we can to figure out who’s telling the truth and make a confirmation decision from there.

 

[Rubee]

It would. I’m just amazed that you think these people exist and just haven’t been found yet, by media or either party. The only checkable/verifiable piece of information Dr. Ford gave was the people who were there, who have been checked and have stated what they have stated. Everything else is a vague unverifiable cloud.

 

[Augustinian]

The point of an actual investigation is to investigate. That’s how you find the evidence that you didn’t know about before. Claiming that an investigation is unnecessary because it won’t find anything is backwards.

We’ll see what they come up with, the FBI has 5 days to do their stuff. The problem here is that the Republicans were sandbagged on this- and the midterm elections are in just a few weeks.

After the election, the whole investigation becomes moot if not completed. If the Democrats win the Senate, Kavanaugh will not be confirmed regardless of the result of the investigation. If the Republicans win the Senate with larger numbers, President Trump will withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate a hard core conservative in his place.

 

[Rubee]

President Trump will withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate a hard core conservative in his place.

I pray you’re wrong about this. I pray Kavanaugh is confirmed early next week.

 

[Augustinian]

I pray you’re wrong about this. I pray Kavanaugh is confirmed early next week.

Kav will only be withdrawn if action isn’t taken by election day.

 

[on_the_hill]

on_the_hill:

I think . . . if it were me, I’d have said, “I’m not guilty but I’m not going to put my family through the fight,” and withdraw.

Which is precisely what the progressive left wants and why they will use this tactic to remove anyone they do not want holding public office from consideration.

The conservative right would do exactly the same thing, and feel entirely righteous in doing it.

I’ll go further to say that there would be a lot less outrage over the character assassination of Kavanaugh if he were liberal/pro-choice.

 

[on_the_hill]

Again, I’m not putting a lot of weight behind the allegations. What I saw was a man under pressure who couldn’t handle it in the way he should if he’s going to be appointed to a lifetime position on the SC. He has to meet a higher standard than the rest of us.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

on_the_hill:

I think . . . if it were me, I’d have said, “I’m not guilty but I’m not going to put my family through the fight,” and withdraw.

Which is precisely what the progressive left wants and why they will use this tactic to remove anyone they do not want holding public office from consideration.

The conservative right would do exactly the same thing, and feel entirely righteous in doing it.

I’ll go further to say that there would be a lot less outrage over the character assassination of Kavanaugh if he were liberal/pro-choice.

Your first claim requires substantiation. Why not do some research on UNSUBSTANTIATED character assassinations in politics and see who is responsible for the vast majority.

And I’ll go even further on your second claim and state that there would not be outrage over the character assassination of Kavanaugh if he were liberal/pro-choice because there would be no character assassination. So nothing to get outraged over.

 

[on_the_hill]

Your first claim requires substantiation. Why not do some research on UNSUBSTANTIATED character assassinations in politics and see who is responsible for the vast majority.

You do it for me. I’m not inclined to.

And I’ll go even further on your second claim and state that there would not be outrage over the character assassination of Kavanaugh if he were liberal/pro-choice because there would be no character assassination. So nothing to get outraged over.

Ah. There’s the answer.

 

[Augustinian]

The conservative right would do exactly the same thing, and feel entirely righteous in doing it.

They haven’t in the past when hard left nominees were made for the court- like Sotomayor or Ginsberg. Or Merrick Garland for that matter- Garland was refused straight up because of politics and the Biden Rule, they didn’t look at his high school drinking and I don’t think they would have. After the 2016 election, had the Dems won, they would probably confirmed him.

Of course, for future appointments, I wouldn’t be surprised if they climb into the sewer.

 

[phil19034]

And you’re absolutely right; this could have — should have — been handled so much better than it was. It was unfair to both of them. But we’re stuck with the hand we were dealt, and we have to go forward from here. So, at this point, we have to do the best we can to figure out who’s telling the truth and make a confirmation decision from there.

Correct. And if the FBI comes back with evidence that he lied, I will be the first to say he can’t be a justice and should be tried for perjury.

But there has to be proof, not just allegations.