US Politics: Donnie and the Mystery of the Anonymous Op-Ed

[Zorral]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

On Feinstein's treatment of the Ford letter:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article218542315.html

 

It's so weird that this one, like most of these stories, leave out that first step of Ford's of sending the letter to her local state congress person -- not to Feinstein.

[Maithanet]

Ellison's case has definitely gotten national attention.  And there's a very simple reason Kavanaugh's situation is getting more attention than Ellison's - Neither deputy chair of the DNC nor Minnesota Attorney General are nearly as important as a Supreme Court Justice. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

53 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

She really really wants to vote for him even if it ends her politcal career,  perjury be damned, what’s a little teenage assault?  

I am not gonna say told you so, but he will get confirmed.

[Morpheus]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I am not gonna say told you so, but he will get confirmed.

I don’t have any doubt, even though there many reasons why he should not be confirmed even before this allegation came to light. And were he somehow blocked, his replacement would be indistinguishable, this is about ideology, nothing more.

[Bonnot OG]

44 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's so weird that this one, like most of these stories, leave out that first step of Ford's of sending the letter to her local state congress person -- not to Feinstein.

It also ignores how both her and Feinstein handled it how she requested it and that a buzzfeed reporter outed her.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

She really really wants to vote for him even if it ends her politcal career,  perjury be damned, what’s a little teenage assault? 

Just recall her comments regarding Franken…….  

[Zorral]

28 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I don’t have any doubt, even though there many reasons why he should not be confirmed even before this allegation came to light. And were he somehow blocked, his replacement would be indistinguishable, this is about ideology, nothing more.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-allegation-hearing-republicans-supreme-court-arent-ditching-for-now.html

and several other sites including the Daily Beast have cited this:

Quote

 

For Donald Trump’s White House, Brett Kavanaugh is increasingly irrelevant to the politics of his own Supreme Court nomination. Instead, those close to the president view the next few days as a virtual X-ray on the backbone of their party and a litmus test for the future of Trump’s presidency.

… There has been no talk within the ranks about pulling the nomination and going with an equally conservative—if not less controversial—pick, even if it would remove a major complication from the Republican agenda just 50 days before the midterm elections. To do so, aides and operatives insist, would be a disaster of much greater magnitude: inviting Democrats to launch more aggressive challenges to future judicial nominees and depressing the very base of conservative voters needed in November.

. . . there are signs that an aversion to showing weakness in the face of Democratic attacks (and/or, unproven sexual assault allegations) will override Kavanaugh’s fundamental expendability . . .

 

 

Quote

. . at this point, sticking with Kavanaugh comes with a major tail risk for the conservative movement. Senate Democrats are hoping to drag out Kavanaugh’s confirmation process even further, calling for an independent FBI investigation of Ford’s allegation before the Senate hears her testimony. Even if things proceed on schedule, there is a risk that Kavanaugh could ultimately be voted down too late in the fall for Republicans to confirm a replacement before the next Congress is sworn in. And, as of this writing, FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a one-in-three chance of taking the Senate in January. Which is to say: There is a tiny — but genuine — possibility that conservatives could squander a Supreme Court seat in an ill-fated attempt to “own the libs.”

 

[SweetPea]

4 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Ah, I see the conservatives in here are doing what aboutism and are as oblivious as ever. 

Kavanaugh shouldn't be a judge at any level given how much of a scumbag dirty corrupt piece of shit he is, and because he attempted to rape someone like the smug preppy 80s teen movie villain he comes across as, let alone a judge with a supreme court seat. 

The rape apologism going on to defend him is not shocking, but still no less disgusting.

Your shameful behaviour is what's disgusting. Rape apologism for not condemning a man without any evidence he is guilty? How about you prove he is guilty first?

[aceluby]

3 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Your shameful behaviour is what's disgusting. Rape apologism for not condemning a man without any evidence he is guilty? How about you prove he is guilty first?

It's not about 'proving he's guilty', it's about performing a thorough investigation into the matter before he is anointed a lifetime membership to a job that oversees the law of the land.  The American people deserve better in that role than someone who has possibly been so flagrant with the law that they've raped someone.  I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

[SweetPea]

Just now, aceluby said:

It's not about 'proving he's guilty', it's about performing a thorough investigation into the matter before he is anointed a lifetime membership to a job that oversees the law of the land.  The American people deserve better in that role than someone who has possibly been so flagrant with the law that they've raped someone.  I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

I don't disagree with that. Investigate all you want. But don't call him a rapist before he is proven guilty, nor call others rape apologists for refusing to condemn him before we have evidence. Which is what @Bonnot OG has done.

[Ser Reptitious]

I'm confused. According to Mitch McConnell no (Democrat?) President should appoint a Supreme Court Justice in an election year, because the voters should have their say first. So doesn't this 'logic' apply to mid-terms as well? Shouldn't voters have a say, at least in the latter half of a mid-term election year?

How come no Democrats (that I'm aware of) are pushing this obvious line of reasoning? Shouldn't they be throwing McConnell's own words back at him as an election strategy?

[Ice Queen]

11 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

I don't disagree with that. Investigate all you want. But don't call him a rapist before he is proven guilty, nor call others rape apologists for refusing to condemn him before we have evidence. Which is what @Bonnot OG has done.

The GOP knew about this ahead of time. There's no way they tracked down 65 women and have them sign a letter of support in less than 24 hours. (Which is now down to 2...they didn't tell the women what they were signing.) That letter was prepared in advance in case this came out.

Does that sound like an innocent man to you? And let's not even talk about Mark Judge.

[SweetPea]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

The GOP knew about this ahead of time. There's no way they tracked down 65 women and have them sign a letter of support in less than 24 hours. (Which is now down to 2...they didn't tell the women what they were signing.) That letter was prepared in advance in case this came out.

Does that sound like an innocent man to you? And let's not even talk about Mark Judge.

Thank god you're not a judge, if you consider that enough proof. 

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Thank god you're not a judge, if you consider that enough proof. 

Okay, and what would you consider proof? Short of a confession, there isn't going to be any in this case. It was 36 years ago. 

So, what EVIDENCE would make you think he's guilty? I'm guessing none, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. 

[Zorral]

8 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

I'm confused. According to Mitch McConnell no (Democrat?) President should appoint a Supreme Court Justice in an election year, because the voters should have their say first. So doesn't this 'logic' apply to mid-terms as well? Shouldn't voters have a say, at least in the latter half of a mid-term election year?

How come no Democrats (that I'm aware of) are pushing this obvious line of reasoning? Shouldn't they be throwing McConnell's own words back at him as an election strategy?

Excellent point, one which I've been wondering myself.  Just like why aren't they beating on the recorded facts that Kavanaugh has been recorded repeatedly lying on oath, over a span of quite a few years in sworn testimony.

[SweetPea]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Okay, and what would you consider proof? Short of a confession, there isn't going to be any in this case. It was 36 years ago. 

So, what EVIDENCE would make you think he's guilty? I'm guessing none, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. 

What are you suggesting? That we should consider him guilty, because it's hard to find evidence in this situation, so let's just trust the words of the accuser? Again, thank god you're not a judge.

[Zorral]

Thank goodness you're not a judge because you just assume that he didn't do it.

But I'm not a judge and the amount of circumstantial evidence is very great, even if one is judging, as I am here, merely the matrix within which he moves, one which is filled from his high school days of males who have committed sexual assault multiple times, not even starting or ending with the assaulter in chief sitting in the oval office.  Then there is the record of so much of what he's said and written and done -- as a judge -- that has abused women, or at the very best been highly highly inappropriate such as forcing that poor young immigrant woman to multiple public invasions of her body because she was seeing an abortion.

And then, well there is all that lying under oath.  Can you possibly be surprised that my personal bias, particularly when considering many of the details of Ford's personal testimony that could not be imagined or made up, that I tend to believe her and think he's highly likely to be guilty?  Particularly when men who commit these acts almost always say, "I don't remember."  "I didn't do it."  "I never do things like that." And how so very often it turns out that they have and they did, but abusing a woman is such normal entitled action they don't even notice they're doing it and don't remember.

Bah.

 

[Week]

15 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

What are you suggesting? That we should consider him guilty, because it's hard to find evidence in this situation, so let's just trust the words of the accuser? Again, thank god you're not a judge.

Not to mention that Dr. Ford's nefarious plot began back when she was going through therapy and shared this to her therapist and husband.

[Morpheus]

What zorral said, the evidence, such as it is, lies in who is more credible, and Kavanugh is a known liar already proven unfit for office. Kavanaugh’s freedom is not is not at issue, this is not the court of law, but public opinion. He is trying to get a position which he should already be disqualified from, he has every reason to lie some more,  what incentive is there for the alleged victim to lie? Do you really think that this woman wants the torrent of abuse, harassment, and public character assassination which  has fallen on her since she before she even revealed her identity?

We also have the context of the guy who nominated him being accused credibly by multiple women of assault and the Republicans taking a very anti-victim stance to protect their self-interest. There is a sense of a boys club, diminishing women’s voices and trivializing assault. So much conservative media analysis this past week has not focused on Kavanaugh’s own denial, but rather, sought to diminish the act he is accused of - “it was so long ago”, “no penetration”, “boys will be boys”.

[Suttree]

33 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Thank god you're not a judge, if you consider that enough proof. 

What in the living f**k?

This isn't some criminal case where the state is attempting to deprive him of “life, liberty, or property.” He is being considered for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court and as such should be held to a higher standard.  Due process does not apply.