Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[AGBF]

Yes he is...by the liberal media!. He is guilty! lock him up and throw away the keys!

Kavanaugh's truthfulness being questioned by people as he applies for a lifetime appointment to an enormously powerful and prestigious position is not "a trial". You, Dancing Fire, and you, redwood, should not expect him to obtain the position on some artificial timetable concocted by the Republicans. He should let the FBI, which is neutral, investigate the charges. There is no more "kangaroo court" going after him than one going after Dr Ford. Trump and the Republican senators have said about her what any of his detractors have said about Kavanaugh: that she is a liar. No proof needed.

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

Ford’s yearbooks make the Bunny Ranch look like a freaking convent. It’s laced with actual pictures and details of keg parties (where they’re proud to ‘not recall the details’), racism, islamaphobia, boasting about ‘making their way through new boys’ schools after they already worked their way through two others’, and a slew of other ‘character-building’ foundations - in plain black and white.

It’s no wonder her legal team pushed so hard to get them removed from the internet in a rush; they portray the school as a drunken brothel, and its faculty as approving pimps over the girls who appear quite proud of their conquests. And calling their existence out is not ‘victim shaming/blaming’ or whatever label libs want to throw on it. It speaks to the very environment Ford alleges her attack to have taken place ... those ‘details’ she claims to have forgotten. No different from Kav’s yearbook being ‘fair game’.

People who are truthful - IMO - don’t rush to delete their entire pre-professional existence ... unless it’s damaging to their case.

 

[Johnbt]

"He's not on trial."

Sure he is. In the court of public opinion, the media, the nightly news and right here in this thread.
All without the accusers being questioned and evidence and witnesses presented. Or even interviewed. What happened to due process?

The Senate can use subpoena power during a hearing, much like a trial court. And like a trial judge charging someone with contempt of court, there's a similar charge called Contempt of Congress:

"Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison"

 

[the_mother_thing]

Not sure how to answer without asking some questions of my own. E.g., do you consider judicially-imposed limitations on the validity of a President's invocation of executive privilege -- or the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 (passed by Congressional override of Nixon's veto) -- to be a diminishment of the Presidential authority conferred by the Constitution? If so, the answer is Yes.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example of how Trump's constitutional authority has been diminished in a novel way. But maybe you have an example, or more than one, and that's why you're asking?

Specifically, what I am asking is: is there a precedent for limiting a president’s powers (such as the case here, with Trump nominating a SC justice) when he (President) has not been charged with a crime? People here and ‘on the left’ argue Trump shouldn’t be able to nominate a judge to the SC who might rule in his (Trump’s) own case, should he be indicted/charged with a crime.

Taking the individuals out of the equation for argument’s sake, I would think that same scenario could occur with any president who ever nominates a SC justice. Obama nominated justices who very well could have weighed in if he had been charged, as could be the case for any President even after they leave office.

 

[OreoRosies86]

So this morning a lot of people are saying her yearbook was scrubbed (and it's content), but can only cite InfoWars and Rush Limbaugh as their "source" which I consider a tad less credible than the New York Times. Will dig deeper.

Alex Jones seems to push hardest for the theory that her racist floozy (WHAT WAS SHE WEARING?! WAS SHE DRINKING?! Oh my god the things people will say to justify rape) yearbook was scrubbed by her legal team, or its damning content. LOL didn't he lose custody of his kids because he's insane and then he told the court he's a performance artist playing a character?

Also why would her legal team NOT take measures to protect her?

 

[cmd2014]

People who are truthful - IMO - don’t rush to delete their entire pre-professional existence ... unless it’s damaging to their case.

Actually this isn’t entirely true. State Boards of Examiners for Psychologists strongly encourage members to avoid having anything other than a professional online presence. It is not considered professional (i.e., reflecting well on the person or the profession), and self disclosure is considered a boundary violation in most professional contexts. It can be a cause for disciplinary action, so most Psychologists make efforts to avoid having this kind of material publically available. Similar standards exist for most other regulated professions as well (including physicians, lawyers, and engineers).

And unless there are pictures of Ford herself engaged in these acts of debauchery or of Ford herself saying that she was trolling through the boys school for sex, then I don’t see what value there is in these materials in this case. And even if she did, drinking and not being a virgin have absolutely no bearing on whether or not she gave consent for that specific act. And consent is the only thing that matters.

I would also say that the only value in Kavanaugh’s similar materials would be to either corroborate or disprove the statements that he has made about his life under oath. If he wants to portray himself as an altar boy and it turns out this is not true, then the issue is his willingness to lie about his life under oath in order to secure a job, not whether or not he drank and partied in his youth. And if he lies about that, then he is likely lying about other things as well. And that becomes a credibility issue and a fitness for office issue.

(Edited for grammar as it was bugging me)

 

[the_mother_thing]

Actually this isn’t entirely true. State Boards of Examiners for Psychologists strongly encourage members to avoid having anything other than a professional online presence. It is not considered professional (i.e., reflecting well on the person or the profession), and self disclosure is considered a boundary violation in most professional contexts. It can be a cause for disciplinary action, so most Psychologists make efforts to avoid having this kind of material publically available. Similar standards exist for most other regulated professions as well (including physicians, lawyers, and engineers).

And unless there are pictures of Ford herself engaged in these acts of debauchery or of Ford herself saying that she was trolling through the boys school for sex, then I don’t see what value there is in these materials in this case. And even if she did, drinking and not being a virgin have absolutely no bearing on whether or not she gave consent for that specific act. And consent is the only thing that matters.

I would also say that the only value in Kavanaugh’s similar materials would be to either corroborate or disprove the statements that he has made about his life under oath. If he wants to portray himself as an altar boy and it turns out this is not true, then the issue is his willingness to lie about his life under oath in order to secure a job, not whether or not he drank and partied in his youth. And if he lies about that, then he is likely lying about other things as well. And that becomes a credibility issue and a fitness for office issue.

(Edited for grammar as it was bugging me)

IF Ford had the content removed 20 years ago, the ‘for professional puposes’ argument might make sense. YEARS later, and week after alleging sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee ... yea, not so much.

Kav’s yearbook doesn’t show him engaged in sexual acts either, so they should be of no consequence here either. They show him as a jock, and I can only assume he wasn’t responsible for writing or approving the ‘caption’ under the picture, but maybe he did. Yet, some who are so quick to toss around the term ‘rape culture’ like it’s M&Ms don’t mind mocking his religion when bringing up his yearbook in a veiled attempt to discredit his character. If his yearbook speaks to his character and the culture he was part of, hers certainly does as well, just in a far more damning manner in the court of public opinion (which Sen. Hirono claims this case IS being tried as).

As an aside, I am truly amazed and shocked that any school would have allowed that kind of ‘history’ to be formally ‘documented’ in a yearbook. It doesn’t speak well as to the school’s history, values, faculty or student body.

 

[MollyMalone]

Specifically, what I am asking is: is there a precedent for limiting a president’s powers (such as the case here, with Trump nominating a SC justice) when he (President) has not been charged with a crime? People here and ‘on the left’ argue Trump shouldn’t be able to nominate a judge to the SC who might rule in his (Trump’s) own case, should he be indicted/charged with a crime. [emphasis added by MM]

Taking the individuals out of the equation for argument’s sake, I would think that same scenario could occur with any president who ever nominates a SC justice. Obama nominated justices who very well could have weighed in if he had been charged, as could be the case for any President even after they leave office.

I myself don't recall seeing/hearing anyone say that a President's ability to nominate whomever he/she pleases should be curtailed; how could such a restriction even be implemented?

 

[redwood66]

Kavanaugh's truthfulness being questioned by people as he applies for a lifetime appointment to an enormously powerful and prestigious position is not "a trial". You, Dancing Fire, and you, redwood, should not expect him to obtain the position on some artificial timetable concocted by the Republicans. He should let the FBI, which is neutral, investigate the charges. There is no more "kangaroo court" going after him than one going after Dr Ford. Trump and the Republican senators have said about her what any of his detractors have said about Kavanaugh: that she is a liar. No proof needed.

AGBF

Anyone saying she is lying is equally as bad as anyone saying he is because we don't know.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I myself don't recall seeing/hearing anyone say that a President's ability to nominate whomever he/she pleases should be curtailed; how could such a restriction even be implemented?

It’s been suggested several times in this thread; that is why I’m asking.

 

[redwood66]

It’s been suggested several times in this thread; that is why I’m asking.

Yes it has and not just this thread.

 

[Arcadian]

Anyone saying she is lying is equally as bad as anyone saying he is because we don't know.

red, I agree with this to some degree. Right now we have a single instance. but as time goes on it looks like there are more. I'm trying very hard to wait and see but this is a very emotional set of circumstances.

The head says lets find out whats true because yes there are instances when men have been wrongly accussed. The heart of me says where there's smoke there's fire. Bill Cosby is a prime example of this.

For the most part I sit on my hands in this conversation to remain non partisan because for me personally, its not about politics. While I may think he'd do fine as a judge in some instances I question his internal compass in others.

Thats not really me being fair, just me being human.

 

[MollyMalone]

IF Ford had the content removed 20 years ago, the ‘for professional puposes’ argument might make sense. YEARS later, and week after alleging sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee ... yea, not so much.

Means nothing in my book. Wouldn't any of us have counseled both her and Judge Kavanaugh & their families to delete any possible platform-springboard for the kind of disturbingly vile, loathsome, outrageous comments and claims that too frequently litter the Internet landscape?

 

[cmd2014]

IF Ford had the content removed 20 years ago, the ‘for professional puposes’ argument might make sense. YEARS later, and week after alleging sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee ... yea, not so much.

Kav’s yearbook doesn’t show him engaged in sexual acts either, so they should be of no consequence here either. They show him as a jock, and I can only assume he wasn’t responsible for writing or approving the ‘caption’ under the picture, but maybe he did. Yet, some who are so quick to toss around the term ‘rape culture’ like it’s M&Ms don’t mind mocking his religion when bringing up his yearbook in a veiled attempt to discredit his character. If his yearbook speaks to his character and the culture he was part of, hers certainly does as well, just in a far more damning manner in the court of public opinion (which Sen. Hirono claims this case IS being tried as).

As an aside, I am truly amazed and shocked that any school would have allowed that kind of ‘history’ to be formally ‘documented’ in a yearbook. It doesn’t speak well as to the school’s history, values, faculty or student body.

I strongly suspect that *she* did not have content about her personal life online. I suspect that either the school had yearbook info published somewhere online (outside of her control) or that others dug this stuff up and published it. And if there was content online, and if it was recently taken down, I don't think we know who had the content taken down. Her? Her lawyer? Someone else? Seems like a lot of accusations with no basis, solely designed to make efforts to undermine her credibility.

The only reason that Kananaugh’s materials might be relevant is that Kavanaugh has made numerous public statements (and statements under oath) about his actions during that time. He is the one charged with proving that he is a fit and reasonable choice for the job to which he is applying. This is essentially the same type of background check that all employers run (albeit on a larger more public scale). His materials may serve to corroborate or disprove those statements and therefore may or may not have probative value. In particular he has denied drinking (probably not true) and partying (probably not true) - and probably not relevant other than to a very conservative base. But if he has lied, that is problematic I would say. He has also denied sexual improprieties. If he lied about drinking/partying (and I say if, as I don’t think there is proof yet), that should probably reflect poorly on his credibility about more significant issues.

 

[cmd2014]

What I find most disturbing about all of this is the rallying to try to discredit Dr. Ford before anyone has even allowed her to speak. And to defend Judge Kavanaugh without knowing whether the accusations have merit. You’d think that truth might matter more than political wrangling.

 

[redwood66]

red, I agree with this to some degree. Right now we have a single instance. but as time goes on it looks like there are more. I'm trying very hard to wait and see but this is a very emotional set of circumstances.

The head says lets find out whats true because yes there are instances when men have been wrongly accussed. The heart of me says where there's smoke there's fire. Bill Cosby is a prime example of this.

For the most part I sit on my hands in this conversation to remain non partisan because for me personally, its not about politics. While I may think he'd do fine as a judge in some instances I question his internal compass in others.

Thats not really me being fair, just me being human.

I agree with you. It is more of a problem for me that politicians are weighing in one way or the other definitively without any testimony. And I really have a problem with the timing of this whole thing which, in my mind, does not help her story, though I don't think they had her best interests in mind anyway.

I do think he would be fine as a judge since I prefer originalists.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Means nothing in my book. Wouldn't any of us have counseled both her and Judge Kavanaugh & their families to delete any possible platform-springboard for the kind of disturbingly vile, loathsome, outrageous comments and claims that too frequently litter the Internet landscape?

Yes, to prevent a character assassination - for both.

But that wasn’t what @cmd2014 suggested; she attributed the deletions to “professional” reasons. My statement simply made the point that IF that was the reason, it’d have been done long before last week.

 

[cmd2014]

Yes, to prevent a character assassination - for both.

But that wasn’t what @cmd2014 suggested; she attributed the deletions to “professional” reasons. My statement simply made the point that IF that was the reason, it’d have been done long before last week.

No, I did not suggest that any *deletions* were for professional reasons. I suggested that there was likely never anything to delete in the first place due to professional reasons.

Look, the *only* information anyone has ever suggested was removed from the internet was old yearbooks from what looks like the school’s website. I suspect that the school took these down, for all sorts of reasons (not the least that it’s bad publicity for the school to be put under this kind of scrutiny). That is a far cry from Dr. Ford herself suddenly “scrubbing” a vast online presence. I never said that Dr. Ford *took down* information for professional reasons. I said (ETA: or at least I was meaning to say) that it would be highly unlikely that Dr. Ford *ever had* an online presence to take down because of professional considerations. So the fact that people can’t find an online presence for her isn’t suspicious and doesn’t mean she scrubbed it...it means it likely did not exist. It would be hard to believe that there was some rush to take down information that was not there in the first place...

 

[Calliecake]

@Dancing Fire, I realize I will receive nothing more an insult or a one line response from you but I have to ask. Did you find it the least bit weird for Kavanaugh to go to the media to tell the world he was a virgin? My guess is what is about to come out could be something worse than what he is being accused of. Why else would McConnell be rushing this thru? Most men or woman for that matter, would welcome an FBI investigation to clear their name. He doesn't want a serious investigation.

The commercial that is still being broadcast with a women saying she has know him for 35 years has rescinded her statement. It’s obvious she isn’t still standing behind him.

His college roommate said he was drunk often, all the while Kavanaugh tries to paint himself as the alter boy who did nothing but study. He also should have done his interview with ABC or CBS instead of Trump TV. Everyone knows Trump is a pathological liar and Fox caters to him.

 

[Dancing Fire]

@Dancing Fire Why else would McConnell be rushing this thru? Most men or woman for that matter, would welcome an FBI investigation to clear their name. He doesn't want a serious investigation.

And why should the senate let her hold up this process w/o any proof? Let's hear what they both have to say on Thursday.

 

[House Cat]

Ford’s yearbooks make the Bunny Ranch look like a freaking convent. It’s laced with actual pictures and details of keg parties (where they’re proud to ‘not recall the details’), racism, islamaphobia, boasting about ‘making their way through new boys’ schools after they already worked their way through two others’, and a slew of other ‘character-building’ foundations - in plain black and white.

It’s no wonder her legal team pushed so hard to get them removed from the internet in a rush; they portray the school as a drunken brothel, and its faculty as approving pimps over the girls who appear quite proud of their conquests. And calling their existence out is not ‘victim shaming/blaming’ or whatever label libs want to throw on it. It speaks to the very environment Ford alleges her attack to have taken place ... those ‘details’ she claims to have forgotten. No different from Kav’s yearbook being ‘fair game’.

People who are truthful - IMO - don’t rush to delete their entire pre-professional existence ... unless it’s damaging to their case.

I see. It’s impossible for a woman who’s had a lot of sex to get sexually assaulted or raped. She’s just walking sex and wants it from every penis she sees. She’ll just “lay back and enjoy it” if someone forces himself on her.

 

[the_mother_thing]

CMD - I appreciate your having respectful dialogue on this, even where we disagree. I’m not ‘ganging up’ my responses below in staunch opposition per se; rather, it was just easier to respond to a few of your comments at the same time.

Seems like a lot of accusations with no basis, solely designed to make efforts to undermine her credibility.

And the exact same has been done to him. Accusations and attacks on his credibility/character with no evidence and no corroborating witnesses. BOTH parties deserve fairness here.

There IS a process - a confidential process - that if Feinstein done her job in the first place, this entire case AND Ford’s anonymity could have proceeded through without the character assassinations on both sides, the smear campaigns, the ‘dirt’ being dug up on both sides, etc. before the ‘truth’ is determined. Feinstein & Co choose not to follow that process. Shame on them.

What I find most disturbing about all of this is the rallying to try to discredit Dr. Ford before anyone has even allowed her to speak. And to defend Judge Kavanaugh without knowing whether the accusations have merit. You’d think that truth might matter more than political wrangling.

Now you want people to wait for the truth before judging? Ford has been invited to testify (could have happened yesterday), she could choose her media outlet now to tell her story, she could pen an Op-Ed (with review by her attorneys). No one but her is preventing her from speaking. And now it seems her attorney’s want to further delay her speaking because the majority members of the committee want to have an impartial person (a woman) question her. Ford wanted a ‘fair’ hearing, and Senate Republicans felt it would be more ‘fair’ to have an impartial person question her so she’d feel comfortable given the delicacy of the topic. The only reason the attorneys want to force Grassley & Co to question Ford is to be able to say - afterward - that they bullied her. More of the ‘old white men beating up on a woman’ smears. Anyone who can’t see the game being played is blind. And it’s disgusting - all around.

No, I did not suggest that any *deletions* were for professional reasons. I suggested that there was likely never anything to delete in the first place due to professional reasons.

You said above: “State Boards of Examiners for Psychologists strongly encourage members to avoid having anything other than a professional online presence. It is not considered professional (i.e., reflecting well on the person or the profession), and self disclosure is considered a boundary violation in most professional contexts. It can be a cause for disciplinary action, so most Psychologists make efforts to avoid having this kind of material publically available. Similar standards exist for most other regulated professions as well (including physicians, lawyers, and engineers).”

It’s been reported that she has also recently deleted her other social media accounts. For whatever reasons she did it, I don’t really care. I’m just saying - in the big picture - it doesn’t really matter to me personally. But in the court of public opinion ...

 

[the_mother_thing]

I see. It’s impossible for a woman who’s had a lot of sex to get sexually assaulted or raped. She’s just walking sex and wants it from every penis she sees. She’ll just “lay back and enjoy it” if someone forces himself on her.

My comments said nothing of the sort, and that suggestion is as disgusting as are the ones that suggest because Kav has a penis, he is a rapist abuser.

I was clear in stating that her own yearbooks detail the environment during the years that she alleges these activities to have taken place. I never said Ford attended any of them; Ford said she attended at least one such event.

 

[House Cat]

My comments said nothing of the sort, and that suggestion is as disgusting as are the ones that suggest because Kav has a penis, he is a rapist abuser.

I was clear in stating that her own yearbooks detail the environment during the years that she alleges these activities to have taken place. I never said Ford attended any of them; Ford said she attended at least one such event.

What is it about this environment that you find relevant to the discussion? I feel like I’m missing something then.

 

[redwood66]

What is it about this environment that you find relevant to the discussion? I feel like I’m missing something then.

It's as relevant as his environment.

 

[MollyMalone]

I myself don't recall seeing/hearing anyone say that a President's ability to nominate whomever he/she pleases should be curtailed; how could such a restriction even be implemented?

It’s been suggested several times in this thread; that is why I’m asking.

The PS Search function isn't working well; nothing came up when I tried several different combinations of words. In skimming through this thread, I see a post asserting that a President who's under investigation should not be allowed to nominate a person to the Supreme Court. But she doesn't suggest how she envisions the wished-for limitation would be put into place. And as I said before, I don't see how that's feasible, even if you think it desirable.

Heaven knows anything is possible, but I've not seen this particular argument elsewhere on the Internet:

People here and ‘on the left’ argue Trump shouldn’t be able to nominate a judge to the SC who might rule in his (Trump’s) own case, should he be indicted/charged with a crime.

Rather, the closest argument I've seen along these lines is that the Congress should not confirm Kavanaugh because he's opined, in law review articles he wrote some 10 and 20 years ago, that a sitting President is-should be immune from criminal prosecution while in office. Those folks aren't arguing that a President is or ought to be foreclosed from naming whomever they want.

 

[the_mother_thing]

What is it about this environment that you find relevant to the discussion? I feel like I’m missing something then.

In this thread, Elliot posted a link to a story about Kavanaugh’s yearbook showing him in a football picture that has a caption below it that someone in the article suggested (not proven) that it refers to those pictured as having counted some woman as a ‘conquest’. Dismissing the obvious bias by the person posting the link (who also mocked his religious beliefs, not a first time for that either) and giving her the benefit of the doubt, it appears it was posted to speak to Kavanaugh’s character and those he surrounded himself with, the environment he was a part of.

Viewing Ford’s yearbook in the same regard is NO different, except that (much to Ford’s/the left’s chagrin) it clearly - in black and white - details Ford’s environment as one of promiscuity, binge drinking to the point of not being able to recall events, and a host of other ‘SJW blasted’ behaviors. Ford stated she attended a party where kids were drinking, and she herself stated she doesn’t remember certain details. It would seem her claims are in line with what her own high school yearbook details “the environment” was like when she attended that school during those years, where the girls boasted about preferring younger boys.

 

[House Cat]

It's as relevant as his environment.

In that it was so wild that he was totally unable to control himself? What is a boy to do with all of these sluts but sexually assault them?

 

[lovedogs]

The PS Search function isn't working well; nothing came up when I tried several different combinations of words. In skimming through this thread, I see a post asserting that a President who's under investigation should not be allowed to nominate a person to the Supreme Court. But she doesn't suggest how she envisions the wished-for limitation would be put into place. And as I said before, I don't see how that's feasible, even if you think it desirable.

Heaven knows anything is possible, but I've not seen this particular argument elsewhere on the Internet:

Rather, the closest argument I've seen along these lines is that the Congress should not confirm Kavanaugh because he's opined, in law review articles he wrote some 10 and 20 years ago, that a sitting President is-should be immune from criminal prosecution while in office. Those folks aren't arguing that a President is or ought to be foreclosed from naming whomever they want.

I that I WISH a POTUS under investigation shouldn't be allowed to nominate someone to SCOTUS because of the high likelihood that SCOTUS might hear parts of the case related to presidential pardon powers, subpoenas, etc. Obviously I recognize that's how now it is right now, but my point is that I wish it were true, because I think trump has reasons to nominate ppl who are likely to be favorable to his positions.

 

[House Cat]

In this thread, Elliot posted a link to a story about Kavanaugh’s yearbook showing him in a football picture that has a caption below it that someone in the article suggested (not proven) that it refers to those pictured as having counted some woman as a ‘conquest’. Dismissing the obvious bias by the person posting the link (who also mocked his religious beliefs, not a first time for that either) and giving her the benefit of the doubt, it appears it was posted to speak to Kavanaugh’s character and those he surrounded himself with, the environment he was a part of.

Viewing Ford’s yearbook in the same regard is NO different, except that (much to Ford’s/the left’s chagrin) it clearly - in black and white - details Ford’s environment as one of promiscuity, binge drinking to the point of not being able to recall events, and a host of other ‘SJW blasted’ behaviors. Ford stated she attended a party where kids were drinking, and she herself stated she doesn’t remember certain details. It would seem her claims are in line with what her own high school yearbook details “the environment” was like when she attended that school during those years, where the girls boasted about preferring younger boys.

Ok, but how does that mean she deserves to be sexually assaulted?

K’s yearbook is equally irrelevant unless it proves he’s assaulted someone.