Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

58 minutes ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

 

Witnesses to the sexual assualts alleged? 

 

La Rose. 

Witnesses who corroborate some details of the accusers testimony. And witnesses who rebut or contradict the accused's testimony.   I believe that there may be one or two direct corroborating witnesses in Ramirez' case. 

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

Again, what were his purjuous statements? 

 

 

 

I feel as though you could google this pretty easily, but:

 

- He denied committed sexual assault under oath.

- He denied drinking heavily under oath.

- He denied knowing about Ramirez' accusations prior to the NYT story, under oath.

 

Off the top of my head.

 

Also, he's a sniveling whiner who doesn't have the temperament to adjudicate kids' soccer games, let alone Supreme Court cases.

[Badger]

13 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

I feel as though you could google this pretty easily, but:

 

- He denied committed sexual assault under oath.

- He denied drinking heavily under oath.

- He denied knowing about Ramirez' accusations prior to the NYT story, under oath.

 

Off the top of my head.

 

Also, he's a sniveling whiner who doesn't have the temperament to adjudicate kids' soccer games, let alone Supreme Court cases.

 

Except, we don't a clear indication of sexual assault.  The other 2, I'll likely give you.

 

Temperament?  Are men supposed to meekly accept any and every claim of sexual assauly against them?  If you don't like his evasive answering or ranting of left-wing conspiracies, I get that and would be agreeing.  But, if I got accused on something like I'd be pissed off, and I'd hope you would be too if under the same circumstances.

[Badger]

ANyway some of my thoughts.

 

-Ford did seem credible, if occasionally too vague for comfort.  Unfortunately, she named 3 witnesses, who aren't willing to corrobate.  Just not enough for me to condemn on.  If it happened that is unfortunate, but I am not going to go witch trialing.

 

-Kavanagh probably shouldn't be in, I guess.  But, if not, for the possible drinking and not being truthful about it.

 

-Swetnick's story is ridiculously improbable.  Gang rapes do happen, but the pictures she paints isn't about 4-6 men raping a drunk woman.  Given what she says with the lines (trains) I envision 20 men, 25, more? Along with multiple victims.  ANd this happened at least 10 times.   This would be all but impossible to keep secret.  Did they also have satanic rituals in daycares?

 

-Ramirez, probably the most credible.  Unfortunate we didn't have this focused on.  Swetnick's story was just too sensational to allow that to happen.

 

-Feinstein. Re-re-thinking on it.  No, I will not give her a pass.  As far as I can tell,  it is her word alone that says she or her staff didn't leak it.  I find her even less credible than Kavanagh about drinking.  Perhaps I am no better than her, to assume guilt of her.  But, tough.

 

-HIrano.  I hate to say it, but part of me wishes, she was a man, so she could take her own advice and shut up.  Yeah, I did take that comment personally.

 

-Republicans? Hate the monumentally warped grandstanding. Democrats-wish you would have asked more actual questions of Kavanagh than playing the Rage bait game.

 

-Kavanagh being impeached if the Democrats win in November?  If I still considered myself a Republican, I would say "Please do", that impeachment would be free campaigning points to get the Congress to swing back my way in 2020.  You're much better off, not rocking the boat for 2 years, hope no other Justices leave, and win the Presidency.  Then when a justice croaks (Ginzburg definitely isn't going to make it through 2024).  The Supreme Court is likely yours for the next 30 years.

 

-my opinion of politics have reached a new low, its digging to China as we speak.  

 

-Lastly, what I wanted was the truth.  But, everyone involved only wanted to give bull####. And I am tired of bull####.

[megaplayboy]

There's also the 94% of the documents relating to his tenure in the Bush Administration which were withheld.  

[Badger]

I guess, I could take the usual political circus this was but I did exceptionally offended by 1)Hirano's comment on men  2) The "outrage" that Kavanagh was "angry". In the same place, my anger would be at the rank of "seething".  And I would venture most rational thinking men would realize they would be to in that situation.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Temperament?  Are men supposed to meekly accept any and every claim of sexual assauly against them?  If you don't like his evasive answering or ranting of left-wing conspiracies, I get that and would be agreeing.  But, if I got accused on something like I'd be pissed off, and I'd hope you would be too if under the same circumstances.

 

That reminds me of an interesting very recent article in the Huffington Post: Christine Blasey Ford Didn't Have The Luxury Of Being Angry. It defines several thought-provoking perspectives, but this passage kind of sums up the thrust of the article:

 

Unlike women, men can yell their way to respect. Their anger is viewed as powerful, no matter how misdirected or unhinged it is. In stark contrast to Blasey’s steady testimony, Kavanaugh came out with metaphorical guns blazing. He yelled. He interrupted. He talked back to Democratic senators, even asking Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) whether she drank to the point of memory loss.

If Blasey’s comportment had mirrored Kavanaugh’s, “she would have been excoriated,” said Tannen. “She would have been seen as a Valkyrie. She had to be composed. Everything about her was pulling in on herself. Everything about him was expansive and explosive.”

 

Whatever the provocation, aggression, rudeness, self-pity, evasion, in public display by a person seeking high office, is not self-evidently justified by anger. Self-righteousness and lack of discipline are not the most desirable qualities for someone from whom the American people have a right to expect the highest aspiration toward sober impartiality.

[unclevlad]

27 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Whatever the provocation, aggression, rudeness, self-pity, evasion, in public display by a person seeking high office, is not self-evidently justified by anger. Self-righteousness and lack of discipline are not the most desirable qualities for someone from whom the American people have a right to expect the highest aspiration toward sober impartiality.

 

 

Ah, but this is the age of Trump.  Leadership is defined as foam-flecked vitriol at every opportunity.

[archer]

4 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

 

Who is the Joe with relevant info here? Has anyone in this proceeding said they have relevant info to the sexual assault we haven't heard? It doesn't Seem any of those people wanting to be interviewed are such a person. 

 

Perhaps there is a Jack who knows of a John? That was supposed to be the case with Ramirez until TheNewYorker showes that to be untrue. So who else is like that that we haven't heard from? It doesn't seem any of the 40 are either Johns or Jacks. 

 

At some point things are just fishing expeditions. 

 

La Rose.  

 

 

 

You are, deliberately, missing the point,

 

The identities of the people who the FBI are allowed to interview was determined before the investigation started.

 

Whether anyone who isn't on the list "knows anything" or not is immaterial. The point is that there's no way whoever came up with the list of names for the FBI could have known (in advance of a real investigation) the identities of everyone who might need to be interviewed.

 

By deliberately coming up with a list in advance then prohibiting the FBI from interviewing anyone who isn't on the list, the investigation became fraudulent: investigators can't ask for leads then follow up on whatever leads which they get.

 

It might be that the fraudulent investigation will accidentally come up the the right conclusion. But you can't prove whether the conclusion is correct or not because there will have been no investigation which follows the standard investigative technique of letting investigators interview whoever they think they need to.

 

< emitting sigh of disgust >

 

 

[Old Man]

4 hours ago, Badger said:

I guess, I could take the usual political circus this was but I did exceptionally offended by 1)Hirano's comment on men  2) The "outrage" that Kavanagh was "angry". In the same place, my anger would be at the rank of "seething".  And I would venture most rational thinking men would realize they would be to in that situation.

 

I'm not sure what was so offensive about Hirono's statement, to be honest.

[IndianaJoe3]

12 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

At some point things are just fishing expeditions. 

 

It's only a, "fishing expedition" if they run out of evidence and keep looking. The Benghazi hearings were clearly one (well, after the first, anyway). The Kavanaugh investigation barely got started and wasn't allowed to continue. It's not a fishing expedition, it's part of the coverup.

[BoloOfEarth]

The only way the Kavanaugh investigation could be considered a fishing expedition is if it's one where you're not allowed bait.  Or a hook.  Or a rod and reel.  Or a net.  Or a spear.  Or a boat.  Or waders.  Okay, we'll let you walk out on the dock (no going in the water!), and anything you can catch with your bare hands is yours to keep. 

[Ternaugh]

2 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

The only way the Kavanaugh investigation could be considered a fishing expedition is if it's one where you're not allowed bait.  Or a hook.  Or a rod and reel.  Or a net.  Or a spear.  Or a boat.  Or waders.  Okay, we'll let you walk out on the dock (no going in the water!), and anything you can catch with your bare hands is yours to keep. 

 

"We'll allow you to talk to these four people who once touched a fish, but that's it."

[DShomshak]

All Things Considered interviewed a former FBI agent about ways the agency could investigate Blasey Ford's allegation. Here's what he suggested, as a start:

 

-- Question Kavanaugh and the people who say, "I don't remember" under polygraph. Wasn't done.

--  Drive Blasey Ford around Georgetown to see if any landmarks help her remember and narrow down where she thinks the assault happened. Wasn't done.

-- Blasey Ford gave some information about the layout of the house. Check plans of houses in the area (I assume these are on record somewhere to make this possible). Find which houses, if any, past or present, match her information. AFAIK this wasn't done; at least, none of the senators have mentioned it.

 

Add in the people who contacted the FBI saying they have relevant memories of Kavanaugh, Ramirez and Blasey Ford, but were ignored, and yeah, I think the investigation can fairly be called a sham.

 

As far as what Kavanaugh's performance says about his judicial temperament, last I heard (ATC again), 2400 law school professors -- the people whose job it is to train future judges, among others -- signed a letter saying they found his rage and partisanship disqualifying. You or I might be enraged by such accusations, and show it. But you or I are not applying for a job that gives vast power, in a body whose legitimacy rests on being seen as nonpartisan.

 

But he's in anyway. I will not refer to Kavanaugh as a rapist; he has not been tried and convicted, so that would be slanderous. But I will refer to him as "accused rapist Brett Kavanaugh," which is exact and literal truth.

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

We have one last chance.  And that's a month away.  But I have little hope the election will change things *enough*.

 

 

[Iuz the Evil]

How about "Kegstand Kavanaugh" if "a bit rapey" is out of bounds?

[Old Man]

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

We have one last chance.  And that's a month away.  But I have little hope the election will change things *enough*.

 

 

 

It won’t. There just aren’t enough senate seats up for re-election this year. A historically low number in fact. 

[Iuz the Evil]

9 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

It won’t. There just aren’t enough senate seats up for re-election this year. A historically low number in fact. 

This. Practically speaking the Dems best hope is to take the House and fight a holding action. This November is the halfway to 2020 mile marker, nothing more.

[archer]

4 hours ago, DShomshak said:

All Things Considered interviewed a former FBI agent about ways the agency could investigate Blasey Ford's allegation. Here's what he suggested, as a start:

 

-- Question Kavanaugh and the people who say, "I don't remember" under polygraph. Wasn't done.

 

 

From what I understand of the nature of the investigation, it is still part of the "doing a background check on a nominee" which is routinely done rather than being a criminal investigation.

 

In a background check, the person being interviewed aren't required to even speak to the people who are wanting to conduct an interview, much less be compelled to take a polygraph.

 

edit:

 

Heh, digging in to try to find out more details of the investigation, I came across descriptions such as these.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/1/17916254/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-ford-trump

 

" the bureau is not looking into the accusations as a criminal matter... Instead, the FBI is conducting the investigation as part of its broader background check into Kavanaugh"

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652558787/what-difference-would-it-make-if-the-fbi-were-to-investigate-kavanaugh

 

"eleventh-hour agreement among the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee after a contentious session of offstage horse-trading. The panel voted to recommend the embattled Kavanaugh to the full Senate on the condition that the final floor vote not take place until after the FBI conducted a background investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct... For a criminal investigation, the FBI would typically give a conclusion, based on its interpretation of the facts. But for these kinds of background checks, the FBI does not; instead, the law enforcement agency only provides the information it gathers — names, dates, answers to questions, that kind of thing — and lets the White House and Senate interpret the facts as provided.

 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told NPR. "I'm not sure what the answers will be. It's possible some of the witnesses won't even agree to talk with FBI."

 

 

 

 

[archer]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

We have one last chance.  And that's a month away.  But I have little hope the election will change things *enough*.

 

 

 

I wish we had a major political party in this country which agreed with me on the issues.

 

I spent almost 40 years inside one of them trying to change it then gave up after having to campaign for Hillary in the 2016 general election.

[megaplayboy]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

It won’t. There just aren’t enough senate seats up for re-election this year. A historically low number in fact. 

The contra of that is that 42 Republican senators will be up for reelection in 2020 and 2022.

[Pariah]

Personally, I object to Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, not (just) because he appears to have problems controlling his urges (lust, drinking, anger) and not (just) because his decisions show support for an agenda farther to the Right that I'm really comfortable with.

 

 I object to Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because when given a chance to state unequivocally that all Americans are equal under the law, up to and including the President, he couldn't do it. This, and this alone, tells me that he has no place on the highest court in the land.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

[megaplayboy]

Our contemporary society, as we know it, is built upon about 20-25 legal precedents and 20-25 landmark pieces of legislation.  Most or all of them are put in question by a hard right shift on the Supreme Court.  A vacancy on the right is unlikely to open up in the next decade(Clarence Thomas is 70 and the life expectancy for an African-American male that age is around 14-15 years).  So there are about 5 options for Democrats going forward:

1. Retake the WH and secure replacements for Ginsburg and Breyer, and wait for a vacancy to open up on the right

2. Hold a committee inquiry into Kavanaugh and see if there's a basis for impeachment

3. Pack the court, expanding it by 1-2 seats

4. Pass a law circumscribing the SCOTUS ability to review certain areas of law(e.g., regulation, the Commerce Clause)

5. Pull an Andrew Jackson and ignore decisions they don't like

 

1 is super passive.  2 is unlikely to be successful(you need 67 votes in the Senate to remove an official).  3 carries a near certainty of escalation and response in kind.  4 and 5 are dangerous precedents to set.  

That said, I think Dems should definitely do 1 and take a hard look at 2 and 3.  Republicans are on an escalatory cycle anyway, and I doubt there's anything Democrats could do to get the GOP to stop voluntarily.  

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

The contra of that is that 42 Republican senators will be up for reelection in 2020 and 2022.

 

 

By then it will be too late.  If it's not already.  2 years of Trump Off A Leash, with a Congress that will, if not rubber stamp everything, at least go along with WAY too much, and the damage will be pervasive.  Socially, making Hate acceptable.  Dismantling government protections and destroying whole agencies like the EPA.  I shudder to consider what'll happen to scientific research.  Legally, with the Court stacked the way it is, we already figure we're going to have a rollback of anything remotely liberal.  And we don't have a Court now to rein Trump in, on issues like immigration.  

 

If I had the money to pull up stakes and move...I'd be planning trips to Vancouver and Switzerland to see about moving.  I truly think things are going to go to hell in a handbasket VERY quickly.

[Joe Walsh]

There are enough votes on the Supreme Court now to overturn anything Democrats do at the State or Federal level, regardless of how elections turn out. That balance of power on the Court is unlikely to change for a generation.

 

It's game over.