|
Post by robeiae on Oct 12, 2018 9:18:53 GMT -5
From a "burden of proof" standpoint, I agree that Dr. Ford basically has little more than nothing in the way of evidence to back up her claims. Her testimony seemed credible and earnest in some places, and flimsy and straw-grasping in other places. I believe that she was likely assaulted at some point, and I believe that she believes it was Kavanaugh, but I'm not convinced that it was, nor am I convinced that it wasn't. I have no idea what the truth is. Having said that, though, the fact that a significant number of people who personally knew him back then (and now) have no problem believing that it's something he would do says a lot about his character back then. If he wasn't a total douche-bro back in high school and college, and was actually a decent person, then I seriously doubt so many people who actually knew him back then would all say, with a pretty loud voice, "Yeah, totally sounds like something he'd do." Additionally, even if one wanted to ignore the accusations and "who he was back then," the fact that he possibly perjured himself several times (or at least came perilously close) in his sworn testimony (now and during the 2004/2006 hearings), and even the Bar Association has distanced themselves from him, says a lot about his character now. Do we really want someone that slimy on the SCOTUS? Any of this by itself (and certainly all of it together) is enough that his nomination should've been withdrawn, or he should've voluntarily declined, or he shouldn't have been confirmed. Either way, he does not deserve to be on the court and I find this entire fiasco infuriating. It should be Merrick Garland in one of those seats, not Kavan-brah. It's interesting, I think, the variety of reasonings people use to arrive at their final conclusions re the nomination. I also don't think Kavanaugh should have been confirmed. He should have withdrawn or been withdrawn. But I go no farther than Ford's accusations coming to light. It's tough, I think, not to find her credible initially. And the mere fact that such is the case should have been enough--probably would have been enough in years gone by--to force a withdrawal. And that's as it should be, in my view: no one has a right to hold federal office--whether appointed or elected--and those responsible for filling the office should always err on the side of the office, not the individual. And yeah, this should apply to elected offices and voters, as well, but just as is the case here, it's not a standard that can be enforced (think about how many political candidates have had credible allegations leveled against them and how few have voluntarily stepped aside, how many have lost so much support that they couldn't win). The last is really the thorny issue for people: at the end of the day, people can't be forced to do what others might think is the right call in these sorts of situations. And the people voting on them (whether it's the public or Congress) can't be forced to vote against them. So the Kavanaugh nomination moved forward. But that shitshow that the hearings became, that turned me off completely. I didn't think it was appropriate for Ford OR Kavanaugh to testify before the Senate committee about an alleged event that occurred so long ago and cannot be positively corroborated by anyone else. There was always doubt there for any reasonable person, in my view. There has to be, since there isn't even a known time and place for the alleged incident. The hearings could have legitimately increased that doubt for some, and I can't really say that's unfair. Ford's testimony--which I think had to be difficult for her--was not wholly consistent with everything she had said previously. One can attribute that to said difficulty and the reality of having someone looking for inconsistencies, but one could also attribute it to an actual lack of clarity for Ford with regard to the entire event, or even to the idea that the whole story was fabricated. I don't know about anyone else, but I have--in the past--believed stories from people, thought them quite credible, only to find out later that the stories were total bs. Anyone remember Greg Mortenson? The point is, there is doubt. The hearings didn't get rid of that doubt, though they also certainly didn't show that Kavanaugh was innocent in the least, contra Trump's claims. And I think Avenatti's client only made things worse in this regard, since many couldn't really help but see Ford's story through the prism of supposed frequent gang rapes that Avenatti's client was claiming. Honestly, I think this was what wound Kavanaugh up so much in the hearings, having that accusation floating just above him, even though it wasn't the subject of the hearings. People want to say that he didn't handle it well, fair enough. But I'm not going to fault him in that regard, because I can't imagine how I would respond in such a situation, where my family and everyone I knew was hearing over and over again not just that I might have committed sexual assault one time against Ford, but that I was a part of a "gang rape club" that repeatedly drugged women at parties, then took turns raping them. And all this leads me to where I am now: I'm not happy that Kavanaugh was confirmed, but I don't see any recourse to that. The idea that his confirmation means he was innocent is rubbish, but then so too is the idea that he was confirmed even though he was absolutely guilty.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Oct 12, 2018 10:02:29 GMT -5
Well said, Rob.
I think a point that is missing here is that by the time this became a circus/shit-show, it was no longer a "job interview". I get tired of the "It was a job interview." stuff. No. It was not. It may have started out that way, but it became a means to destroy a person's life/reputation/dignity and obliterate 36 years of what seems to have been an exemplary adult life. That is not simply keeping him from attaining his seat on the SCOTUS. And for the GOP to withdraw him, or K himself to withdraw, if he truly is innocent, would look like an admission of guilt and brand him for life/ruin him for life. And that is another reason this accusation should have been kept confidential and investigated and not turned into the political circus that it was, beyond the fact that it would have been the right thing to do for Dr. Ford.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 12, 2018 10:13:05 GMT -5
And for the GOP to withdraw him, or K himself to withdraw, if he truly is innocent, would look like an admission of guilt and brand him for life/ruin him for life. And that is another reason this accusation should have been kept confidential and investigated and not turned into the political circus that it was, beyond the fact that it would have been the right thing to do for Dr. Ford. Disagree on the first. If he withdrew when the accusations surfaced, he could have done so with dignity. Indeed, Trump could have withdrawn him with dignity. Kavanaugh: "While I maintain these accusations are categorically untrue, I cannot in good conscience allow my nomination to be considered further, as the gravity of the office would not be well served by the vigorous defense that answering these accusations would require." And so on and so forth. Or: Trump: "While I believe these accusations are categorically untrue, I cannot in good conscience allow this nomination to be considered further, as the gravity of the office demands that most Americans accept that the candidate has an untarnished past." And so on and so forth. On the second, yes that would have been ideal, but given the partisan nature of DC, there was no way these kind of accusations--if they were investigated--would have stayed confidential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2018 14:42:12 GMT -5
Agree with Rob that either Kav or Trump could have withdrawn with dignity -- and that's what should have happened.
Even beyond the accusations, there were a load of questions about his debts and the fact that most of his record was being kept from consideration. I didn't feel comfortable with him BEFORE Ford. Once that surfaced...
Any person under consideration for the Supreme Court should revere the institution at least as much as I do, and that reverence should lead you to prefer stepping aside to damaging the institution. The person being nominated shouldn't be controversial. Not everyone needs to adore them, but their record should not only be brilliant but it also shouldn't have a cloud of ethical issues or inappropriate partisan bias over it.
Gorsuch fit that bill (which is why I don't diss him). Garland fit that bill (and I think it's a screaming shame he's not on the court). Kav doesn't, IMO. And that's not good for the institution.
(And yeah, Rob, I also agree with what you're likely to say here -- that not everyone on the court fits my shiny standard. I don't disagree. I just found this one particularly disheartening and upsetting. There are better people out there, FFS. The Supreme Court should be the best of the best.)
In related news, the latest polls seem to bear out my take that Americans overall are not raging for a pro-Kav red wave:
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Oct 12, 2018 15:08:29 GMT -5
All those polls look to me, at a quick glance, to be pretty much divided like party lines are divided. I'm not sure that is surprising.
Also, I don't put much faith into the "who are you more likely to vote for" polls. They are never accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Oct 12, 2018 23:08:10 GMT -5
I thought this was an interesting analysis of Kavanaugh's testimony (from a trial lawyer in NY, but I have no idea if he's actually any good or a hack, but I thought he made some good points. Maybe @cassandraw 's future husband? ).
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 14, 2018 17:29:42 GMT -5
Well said, Rob. I think a point that is missing here is that by the time this became a circus/shit-show, it was no longer a "job interview". I get tired of the "It was a job interview." stuff. No. It was not. It may have started out that way, but it became a means to destroy a person's life/reputation/dignity and obliterate 36 years of what seems to have been an exemplary adult life. That is not simply keeping him from attaining his seat on the SCOTUS. And for the GOP to withdraw him, or K himself to withdraw, if he truly is innocent, would look like an admission of guilt and brand him for life/ruin him for life. And that is another reason this accusation should have been kept confidential and investigated and not turned into the political circus that it was, beyond the fact that it would have been the right thing to do for Dr. Ford. And for the GOP to withdraw him, or K himself to withdraw, if he truly is innocent, would look like an admission of guilt and brand him for life/ruin him for life. And that is another reason this accusation should have been kept confidential and investigated and not turned into the political circus that it was, beyond the fact that it would have been the right thing to do for Dr. Ford. Disagree on the first. If he withdrew when the accusations surfaced, he could have done so with dignity. Indeed, Trump could have withdrawn him with dignity. Kavanaugh: "While I maintain these accusations are categorically untrue, I cannot in good conscience allow my nomination to be considered further, as the gravity of the office would not be well served by the vigorous defense that answering these accusations would require." And so on and so forth. Or: Trump: "While I believe these accusations are categorically untrue, I cannot in good conscience allow this nomination to be considered further, as the gravity of the office demands that most Americans accept that the candidate has an untarnished past." And so on and so forth. On the second, yes that would have been ideal, but given the partisan nature of DC, there was no way these kind of accusations--if they were investigated--would have stayed confidential. Agree with Rob that either Kav or Trump could have withdrawn with dignity -- and that's what should have happened. Even beyond the accusations, there were a load of questions about his debts and the fact that most of his record was being kept from consideration. I didn't feel comfortable with him BEFORE Ford. Once that surfaced... Any person under consideration for the Supreme Court should revere the institution at least as much as I do, and that reverence should lead you to prefer stepping aside to damaging the institution. The person being nominated shouldn't be controversial. Not everyone needs to adore them, but their record should not only be brilliant but it also shouldn't have a cloud of ethical issues or inappropriate partisan bias over it. Gorsuch fit that bill (which is why I don't diss him). Garland fit that bill (and I think it's a screaming shame he's not on the court). Kav doesn't, IMO. And that's not good for the institution. (And yeah, Rob, I also agree with what you're likely to say here -- that not everyone on the court fits my shiny standard. I don't disagree. I just found this one particularly disheartening and upsetting. There are better people out there, FFS. The Supreme Court should be the best of the best.) In related news, the latest polls seem to bear out my take that Americans overall are not raging for a pro-Kav red wave: Once the allegations where made, it was a no win scenario for him. Yes, he could have withdrawn and said he was doing so despite the fact that he was innocent, but the fact is, he would have still been seen as guilty by most people who see him guilty now. We would have heard, "He wouldn't have withdrawn if he weren't guilty."
More so, he could have been brought into a closed door meeting where this could have been hashed out, without the accusation becoming public. He could have then withdrawn, for personal reasons. He would have had his dignity intact, and Dr. Ford could have had her letter remain anonymous.
I'm still waiting for the outrage at the letter being leaked by Fienstein or someone on her staff.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Oct 14, 2018 18:01:24 GMT -5
Once the allegations where made, it was a no win scenario for him. Yes, he could have withdrawn and said he was doing so despite the fact that he was innocent, but the fact is, he would have still been seen as guilty by most people who see him guilty now. We would have heard, "He wouldn't have withdrawn if he weren't guilty." There are always going to be people who assume an allegation equals truth. But this wasn't an elected office and Kavanaugh is (was) not someone constantly in the public eye. If he had been withdrawn early on, he could have continued his career as a judge quite easily. The people who matter to him would have accepted the withdrawal and everyone would have gotten on with their lives. Well again, that's a great idea, but DC being what it is--especially these days, when leaking is an art form--the accusations would have still come out, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 18:34:04 GMT -5
Taking aside the allegations themselves and assuming for the sake of argument they aren't true (not my belief, but whatever), and taking aside the temperament issue, and assuming for the sake of argument (one I absolutely disagree with, but whatever) that it doesn't matter, and assuming that "Devil's Triangle" really was an unfortunately named drinking game played only by Kavanaugh's set (which I don't believe, but whatever), do you know the one thing I personally hold against Kavanaugh more than anything else, and that I just can't get past?
Renate. Poor Renate. And the way Kavanaugh handled the Renate issue in the hearings.
Okay, does ANYONE here buy that Kavanaugh and the entire football team made an inside joke about her -- "Renate alumnius" -- in the yearbook, and it was supposed to be respectful? Keep in mind that rhyme one of them used (and that another Georgetown prep grad recalled Kavanaugh singing in the hallways) -- "it's getting late, and you need a date, don't hesitate, call Renate!"
Sorry, it was not fucking respectful. It was clearly, obviously, a cruel, snickering, boastful inside joke implying that all of them--the entire football team--had slept with Renate. Indeed, once she found out about it (35 years later), that's exactly how she took it. As, come on, anyone with a brain would.
According to Renate, that wasn't true. But even if it were true, it's an ugly fucking way to sneer at a girl. It was even uglier in the 80s than it is now.
I can hear c.e. now; "okay, so that means Kavanaugh was a jackass at 17-18 year old, but it's been 35 years, so who cares?" Well, c.e., here's why we should care. Because in his hearing, he didn't own he was a jackass at 17-18. Instead, he lied. He said the guys meant "Renate alumnius" and that abominable rhyme respectfully -- which, come on, is obviously a lie. Teenage jocks don't make group inside jokes and horrible rhymes like that about girls they respect. Probably realizing that "alumnius" would pretty much have to mean a shared experience with Renate to any normal human, Kav also said he'd taken Renate to an event once and they'd shared a kiss. And Renate herself says that too is a lie -- they never went out and never kissed.
He was a lying sniggering asshole at 17 -- and he may have acquired more couth, but he's still a liar now. I'd like him better (and find him more credible) if he owned up to the Renate thing and abjectly apologized for it (and also acknowledged the blackout drinking that seemed to have been pretty common knowledge among his peers). Instead, he denied the painfully obvious.
Poor Renate.
ETA:
To note: I would rule someone out for either a job or a date for that particular lie.
I am quite serious. If I happened to discover such a sniggering reference in the yearbook of someone who asked me on a date or someone interviewing with me for a job, and I asked them about it, and they responded as Kavanaugh did, I'd mark them as a liar who won't own their own past behavior. (I should note that I do in fact google people I am considering dating or working with. Usually you just find out boring stuff, sometimes something genuinely interesting, and every once in a while something just awful. )
On the flip side, if they DID own it, and expressed strong regret for what a horrible shit they'd been, I might accept that they were now a changed person and a decent human.
Once, googling a colleague, I found that when he was an undergrad, he'd written some pretty horrible homophobic stuff. Trust me, it was awful. I was shocked. Since we were quite friendly and I worked with him a lot, I decided to tell him what I'd found and ask him about it. The fact is, if I didn't ask him about it, I was never going to feel right around him again. He was horribly embarrassed (he didn't realize it was on the internet), but acknowledged it immediately and noted that he was ashamed of the jackass he'd been as a young college student.
Because he was clearly ashamed and sorry and owned his past assholishness rather than denying it or getting defensive about it, I was able to fully accept that he was no longer that jackass and to continue to like him as much as ever. If he'd gotten defensive or evasive...yeah, I wouldn't have felt that way.
That, IMO, was what Kav should have done with regard to Renate. That he didn't says worlds to me, not only about the teen he was, but about the man he is.
ETA:
And besides the fact that it shows the kind of man he is now (one who will lie to help his career), it also shows something pretty damn relevant to the credibility of the allegations: to wit, that at that age he was willing to treat girls -- at least some girls -- in a disrespectful, dehumanizing way.
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Oct 15, 2018 3:09:43 GMT -5
Exactly!
I'm pretty sure all of us did jackass things when we were teenagers.
Let's have a show of hands. Who here didn't do something stupid as a teenager?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 15, 2018 6:25:06 GMT -5
He was not "proven innocent", and the polls I've seen indicate that more than half the nation feels that Kav and Trump owe the apology. No, he was proven innocent, nor was he proven guilty. How could he be expected of a charge where nobody but the accuser remembers, or even remembers the party? And she can't give a date? He could have a rock solid alibi but can't provide it as we're talking a range of years. According to Mitchell, the one who questioned Dr. Ford, the evidence not only wouldn't be enough to bring a criminal charge, it wouldn't win in a civil suit with a much lower burden of proof. Pop quiz, Vince.
Wind back the years of your own life to a time and a date 36 years ago and tell me exactly when, where and what you were doing. Please include names, addresses, phone numbers and descriptions of anyone who may have witnessed what happened on this given date three-and-a-half decades ago. I'll wait.
Can't do it? Maybe nothing remarkable happened. Maybe nothing occurred which left a lasting, indelible mark on your memory. Maybe you didn't experience anything that left you traumatized from then to now. Maybe the fact you can't remember all the details shouldn't lead one to conclude nothing happened at all. Since you have not read the entire thread, Vince (and that's understandable because there's a lot here to digest) you may not have seen or read a prior post where Patti Reagan Davis wrote an essay in The Washington Post about her own underreported sexual assault.
I respect that other issues have prevented you from fully catching up with the myriad twists and turns of The Kavanaugh Confirmation Fiasco. There are many takeaways from this sordid, sorry event, but the most aggravating to my mind is the whiny way in which the all-male Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee punted on questioning Dr. Ford directly in fear of the horrible optics biting them in the ass, immediately followed by allowing Judge Kavanaugh's whiny, evasive and self-pitying passive-aggressive "defense" which so shook even some supporters that over 2000 law professors and a former Supreme Court Justice came out against Kavanaugh.
Had Merrick Garland been accused of a similar act or conducted himself in such a partisan manner, every last one of those GOP senators would have trashed his ass. Since the fix was in against Garland even receiving a confirmation hearing and the Republicans signaling they would employ all methods fair and foul to drag Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, this was an ugly case of power being held by a few to put an unfit man into a lifetime position where he will wreak havoc upon the many for years to come. Kudos to the four female Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for persisting and speaking hard truths their sullen, sulking Republican colleagues did not enjoy and may not have wanted to listen to, but definitely heard.
Senator Feinstein was elected in 1992, a year after the Anita Hill hearings. During those proceedings, there were no women on the Senate Judiciary Committee at all.
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii): I hope there will come a time when people like Dr. Ford can come forward, tell us their stories, and not be called a liar. Not be mocked by the president, no less. But that requires a culture change. Notice that there’s all this pushback now of men being so afraid, as though we women just sit around thinking up ways to accuse them of things. Women have had to put up with this bullshit for way too long.
Kamala Harris (California): In 53 percent of sexual-assault cases, the victims do not report the case to the police. And we should no longer allow — or certainly, encourage — people to suffer in silence. We should be having this conversation out in the open, in a way that gives dignity and safety to survivors. And frankly, I don’t think this process gave Dr. Ford the respect she deserves.
Dianne Feinstein (California): I think women are emerging in a way they never have during my lifetime. They are credible, they are believable, they are electable. But I don’t think the culture’s changed to the point where women are respected for what they do to the extent they should be.
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota): In politics, power is when you get something done for the people you represent. Sometimes the result is a bill gets passed, sometimes it’s getting something done for a constituent. But sometimes it’s just making people know that you have their back and that you’re a voice for them, which is what I think happened at the hearing.
Exactly! I'm pretty sure all of us did jackass things when we were teenagers. Let's have a show of hands. Who here didn't do something stupid as a teenager? Teenagers and stupid go together like biscuits and gravy. Still most teenage boys find a way to make it through their peak testosterone years without being accused of attempted rape and waving their junk in a woman's face.
That sort of behavior goes way past jackassery. Sexual assault is something far beyond dumb kids doing dumb shit.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 15, 2018 12:45:25 GMT -5
Once the allegations where made, it was a no win scenario for him. Yes, he could have withdrawn and said he was doing so despite the fact that he was innocent, but the fact is, he would have still been seen as guilty by most people who see him guilty now. We would have heard, "He wouldn't have withdrawn if he weren't guilty." Okay, you and celaw have bought heavily into this idea that Kavanaugh couldn't withdraw and the GOP couldn't back down, because once the allegation were made, if he were innocent it would be ruining him and the confirmation process forever after. So, let's say he was a completely innocent man wrongly tarred by a horrible accusation by a crazy/lying accuser. Here's what he (and they) could have done to go forward with his nomination while preserving his dignity: Kavanaugh, gravely and sincerely, addresses the accusations, says they are false, it didn't happen, he doesn't know why Ford is identifying him as her attacker, suggests that perhaps she was in fact sexually assaulted and maybe she really believes it was him and he's very sorry that happened to her, but she's wrong, it wasn't him. Take that argument and just repeat it until the proceedings are finished. If it's actually true, then he's managed to defend his innocence without turning it into a smear campaign against Ford or making himself look an unhinged, defensive asshole. Instead, he went the unhinged, defensive asshole route. Which went a long way towards convincing me that he's probably guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 16, 2018 7:48:34 GMT -5
No, he was proven innocent, nor was he proven guilty. How could he be expected of a charge where nobody but the accuser remembers, or even remembers the party? And she can't give a date? He could have a rock solid alibi but can't provide it as we're talking a range of years. According to Mitchell, the one who questioned Dr. Ford, the evidence not only wouldn't be enough to bring a criminal charge, it wouldn't win in a civil suit with a much lower burden of proof. Pop quiz, Vince.
Wind back the years of your own life to a time and a date 36 years ago and tell me exactly when, where and what you were doing. Please include names, addresses, phone numbers and descriptions of anyone who may have witnessed what happened on this given date three-and-a-half decades ago. I'll wait.
Can't do it? Maybe nothing remarkable happened. Maybe nothing occurred which left a lasting, indelible mark on your memory. Maybe you didn't experience anything that left you traumatized from then to now. Maybe the fact you can't remember all the details shouldn't lead one to conclude nothing happened at all. Since you have not read the entire thread, Vince (and that's understandable because there's a lot here to digest) you may not have seen or read a prior post where Patti Reagan Davis wrote an essay in The Washington Post about her own underreported sexual assault.
I respect that other issues have prevented you from fully catching up with the myriad twists and turns of The Kavanaugh Confirmation Fiasco. There are many takeaways from this sordid, sorry event, but the most aggravating to my mind is the whiny way in which the all-male Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee punted on questioning Dr. Ford directly in fear of the horrible optics biting them in the ass, immediately followed by allowing Judge Kavanaugh's whiny, evasive and self-pitying passive-aggressive "defense" which so shook even some supporters that over 2000 law professors and a former Supreme Court Justice came out against Kavanaugh.
Had Merrick Garland been accused of a similar act or conducted himself in such a partisan manner, every last one of those GOP senators would have trashed his ass. Since the fix was in against Garland even receiving a confirmation hearing and the Republicans signaling they would employ all methods fair and foul to drag Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, this was an ugly case of power being held by a few to put an unfit man into a lifetime position where he will wreak havoc upon the many for years to come. Kudos to the four female Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for persisting and speaking hard truths their sullen, sulking Republican colleagues did not enjoy and may not have wanted to listen to, but definitely heard.
Senator Feinstein was elected in 1992, a year after the Anita Hill hearings. During those proceedings, there were no women on the Senate Judiciary Committee at all.
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii): I hope there will come a time when people like Dr. Ford can come forward, tell us their stories, and not be called a liar. Not be mocked by the president, no less. But that requires a culture change. Notice that there’s all this pushback now of men being so afraid, as though we women just sit around thinking up ways to accuse them of things. Women have had to put up with this bullshit for way too long.
Kamala Harris (California): In 53 percent of sexual-assault cases, the victims do not report the case to the police. And we should no longer allow — or certainly, encourage — people to suffer in silence. We should be having this conversation out in the open, in a way that gives dignity and safety to survivors. And frankly, I don’t think this process gave Dr. Ford the respect she deserves.
Dianne Feinstein (California): I think women are emerging in a way they never have during my lifetime. They are credible, they are believable, they are electable. But I don’t think the culture’s changed to the point where women are respected for what they do to the extent they should be.
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota): In politics, power is when you get something done for the people you represent. Sometimes the result is a bill gets passed, sometimes it’s getting something done for a constituent. But sometimes it’s just making people know that you have their back and that you’re a voice for them, which is what I think happened at the hearing.
Exactly! I'm pretty sure all of us did jackass things when we were teenagers. Let's have a show of hands. Who here didn't do something stupid as a teenager? Teenagers and stupid go together like biscuits and gravy. Still most teenage boys find a way to make it through their peak testosterone years without being accused of attempted rape and waving their junk in a woman's face.
That sort of behavior goes way past jackassery. Sexual assault is something far beyond dumb kids doing dumb shit.
I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but it works in reverse. How can someone defend against a charge where the accuser says it happened 36-37 years ago, can't remember many key details that could be verified (How she got there, got home, where it was, even the date) Yeah, I'm not convinced he's innocent my a long shot, but she could be lying, or simply wrong about who it was. I'm also not particularly impressed with Fienstien who was given a letter to be kept private, yet it got leaked by her or someone on her staff. Or Harris who made it pretty clear she believed Ford before she testified. Quite frankly, I'm not impressed with anyone in this sorry mess, Kavanaugh included. As far as your last point, it's spot on. We have some people willing to believe an accusation without any tangible proof, and the other half willing to say an attempted rape would be no big deal or disqualifying because he was a 17 year old. Why can't I be troubled by both sides? Once the allegations where made, it was a no win scenario for him. Yes, he could have withdrawn and said he was doing so despite the fact that he was innocent, but the fact is, he would have still been seen as guilty by most people who see him guilty now. We would have heard, "He wouldn't have withdrawn if he weren't guilty." Okay, you and celaw have bought heavily into this idea that Kavanaugh couldn't withdraw and the GOP couldn't back down, because once the allegation were made, if he were innocent it would be ruining him and the confirmation process forever after. So, let's say he was a completely innocent man wrongly tarred by a horrible accusation by a crazy/lying accuser. Here's what he (and they) could have done to go forward with his nomination while preserving his dignity: Kavanaugh, gravely and sincerely, addresses the accusations, says they are false, it didn't happen, he doesn't know why Ford is identifying him as her attacker, suggests that perhaps she was in fact sexually assaulted and maybe she really believes it was him and he's very sorry that happened to her, but she's wrong, it wasn't him. Take that argument and just repeat it until the proceedings are finished. If it's actually true, then he's managed to defend his innocence without turning it into a smear campaign against Ford or making himself look an unhinged, defensive asshole. Instead, he went the unhinged, defensive asshole route. Which went a long way towards convincing me that he's probably guilty. He could have handled it much better. One lawyer I follow on Twitter made the point that no matter how emotional you get in a case, you yell, cry, scream in private. Perception is important and he came off badly. But if he's innocent and being tarred as the leader of gang rape, I don't blame him as a person for getting angry. I wasn't a fan of his to begin with. Ford came off well enough, but her account had major holes, beyond the gaps in her memory, like her fear of flying yet she flies frequently. I'm not about to say he handled this the best way, but as I've said, nobody did
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Oct 16, 2018 8:32:23 GMT -5
He could have handled it much better. One lawyer I follow on Twitter made the point that no matter how emotional you get in a case, you yell, cry, scream in private. Perception is important and he came off badly. But if he's innocent and being tarred as the leader of gang rape, I don't blame him as a person for getting angry. I wasn't a fan of his to begin with. Ford came off well enough, but her account had major holes, beyond the gaps in her memory, like her fear of flying yet she flies frequently. I'm not about to say he handled this the best way, but as I've said, nobody did I don't blame him for being angry. But as Cass and many, many others have pointed out, a (candidate for)Supreme Court Justice should be able to sit calmly before a committee and answer horrible accusations without losing his shit. If Ford's account of something that happened 36 years ago didn't have holes in it, I'd be suspicious at what a seamless narrative she'd constructed. None of the alleged "holes" are blatant falsehoods or provably wrong, just the sort of details you'd expect to get fuzzy after three decades.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Oct 16, 2018 12:01:39 GMT -5
He could have handled it much better. One lawyer I follow on Twitter made the point that no matter how emotional you get in a case, you yell, cry, scream in private. Perception is important and he came off badly. But if he's innocent and being tarred as the leader of gang rape, I don't blame him as a person for getting angry. I wasn't a fan of his to begin with. Ford came off well enough, but her account had major holes, beyond the gaps in her memory, like her fear of flying yet she flies frequently. I'm not about to say he handled this the best way, but as I've said, nobody did I don't blame him for being angry. But as Cass and many, many others have pointed out, a (candidate for)Supreme Court Justice should be able to sit calmly before a committee and answer horrible accusations without losing his shit. If Ford's account of something that happened 36 years ago didn't have holes in it, I'd be suspicious at what a seamless narrative she'd constructed. None of the alleged "holes" are blatant falsehoods or provably wrong, just the sort of details you'd expect to get fuzzy after three decades. I don't disagree, but it bothers me that all of the holes are things that prevent him from being able to form any defense. He can't account for his time, no matter how many calenders he kept because we don't know when. We don't know where. She can't remember stopping to use a phone to call for a ride, which would have been needed back then, unless she took a bus, or hitchhiked or something. She can't remember how she got home. I do agree, he didn't handle himself as I would want a SCJ should. He wouldn't have been my pick to begin with.
|
|