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

[Week]

55 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 -- the defense by Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend and a rape apologist.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-alleged-accomplice-mark-judges-writing-on-assault.html

^More on that garbage human being that Kavanaugh is friends with.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour 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.

Actually, I think they were more concerned with his relationship with Judge Kozinski.  That wasn't played up as much as it should have been, and he just denied that he ever really saw the awful emails, and everyone moved on.  

My own view is that on some level, it isn't as much what he did or didn't do 35 years ago in high school.  Honestly, there is no way of knowing.  But I do agree that as a Supreme Court nominee, he should be like Caesar's wife.  Sadly, isn't always the standard (see, Thomas, Clarence).  And the better question now is whether he is being truthful.  And if she is more credible than he, then...well....

[S John]

47 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.

I should know better than to wade into this, but I have to agree.  

I am a liberal.  I don't want Kavanaugh on the court, but I can't say I believe or do not believe the accuser until evidence is presented because I don't know any of these people personally or what they are like as human beings.  To be completely honest, I am having a hard time getting over the timing on this one. 

I believe that the victim of a crime should have the space to come forward whenever they are comfortable doing so, but 38 years later at a key moment in the life of the accused that is also of monumental political importance?  How can that not beg the question - Is this about justice or is this about stalling this appointment long enough to see if the Dems can retake congress?  I don't see how it could not raise some suspicions.  Not that the R's don't deserve that after sabotaging Garland, but damn.

[SweetPea]

19 minutes ago, Zorral said:

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

When did I say that? I said investigate him, and condemn him AFTER you have evidence. Seriously, what the hell is up with people constantly strawmanning on this forum? Can you try reading again what I wrote?

3 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

He is trying to get a position which he should already be disqualified from,  

That's your opinion.

Quote

he has every reason to lie some more,

"Lie"? Again, you're already assuming he is guilty.

Quote

what incentive is there for the alleged victim to lie?

Oh, I don't know, what incentive could she possibly have? I can't think of anything...

Quote

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”.

I haven't seen anyone defend Kavanaugh because of "no penetration" or "boys will be boys", but the fact that it happened (allegedly) so long ago is a valid issue to bring up. And let's not pretend it's only the evil conservative media mentioning it: even the Wall Street Journal realizes this has all the earmarks of a calculated political ambush. 

26 minutes ago, Suttree said:

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. 

Higher standard than what? Being accused of something without proof? Give me a break...

[Frog Eater]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

Not to mention -- the defense by Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend and a rape apologist.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-alleged-accomplice-mark-judges-writing-on-assault.html

^More on that garbage human being that Kavanaugh is friends with.

thats not being a rape apologist, thats stating that he has no memory of the party or events described by Ms. Ford. Much the same as Kavanaugh's statement. 

Maybe Ms. Ford can find some sort of proof that Kavanaugh was at this party she remembers, but other alleged attendees dont. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour 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?

I’ve been saying this for a while. Even if Republicans don’t care that they’re being total hypocrites, you need to show the public that they are. Most people don’t have time to follow the ins and outs of daily politics, so you have to remind them, constantly, what the hell is going on.

This is also why they’re trying to rush the nominee through. If Democrats retake the Senate, Republicans would have less than a two month window to get their nominee appointed, and it would be a horrible look to do so after losing an election, not that that would stop them.

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, S John said:

I should know better than to wade into this, but I have to agree.  

I am a liberal.  I don't want Kavanaugh on the court, but I can't say I believe or do not believe the accuser until evidence is presented because I don't know any of these people personally or what they are like as human beings.  To be completely honest, I am having a hard time getting over the timing on this one. 

I believe that the victim of a crime should have the space to come forward whenever they are comfortable doing so, but 38 years later at a key moment in the life of the accused that is also of monumental political importance?  How can that not beg the question - Is this about justice or is this about stalling this appointment long enough to see if the Dems can retake congress?  I don't see how it could not raise some suspicions.  Not that the R's don't deserve that after sabotaging Garland, but damn.

If he was as qualified as the R's are trying to portray him as, who runs the senate shouldn't matter.  It wasn't that long ago that you needed 60 votes for a confirmation, and every nominated candidate besides Trumps have passed that rigorous test.

But let's be honest here, he's obviously not qualified for this job, and this is just one more little piece in a mountain of evidence showing that.  He doesn't even understand how contraception works.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

If he was as qualified as the R's are trying to portray him as, who runs the senate shouldn't matter.  It wasn't that long ago that you needed 60 votes for a confirmation, and every nominated candidate besides Trumps have passed that rigorous test.

But let's be honest here, he's obviously not qualified for this job, and this is just one more little piece in a mountain of evidence showing that.  He doesn't even understand how contraception works.

OK that's just not true.  In a great irony, the man who held the seat that Kavanaugh would take only had it because the previous nominee was Robert Bork (and there are others).

[DanteGabriel]

14 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

thats not being a rape apologist, thats stating that he has no memory of the party or events described by Ms. Ford. Much the same as Kavanaugh's statement. 

Maybe Ms. Ford can find some sort of proof that Kavanaugh was at this party she remembers, but other alleged attendees dont. 

You could try actually reading, and realize that Week is referring to Judge's numerous books and columns and social media posts that are rape apologia, which was linked right there in the post you quoted.

Ford named Judge as a participant in her sexual assault. Judge has written numerous books about what a wasted piece of shit he was in high school. His high school yearbook has quotes from him about hitting women and being a fucking drunk. Kavanaugh's own yearbook quotes match the Judge quotes (both were members of the "Keg City Club"). Ford and other women from her school have talked about the drunken party culture there. Judge's own book about his adolescent hijinks refers to a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who gets blackout drunk with him.

But Kavanaugh tried to paint himself as some kind of Eagle Scout who lived the Jesuit "man for others" motto while at that school.

Sure, the woman's lying.

[DanteGabriel]

21 minutes ago, S John said:

I should know better than to wade into this, but I have to agree.  

I am a liberal.  I don't want Kavanaugh on the court, but I can't say I believe or do not believe the accuser until evidence is presented because I don't know any of these people personally or what they are like as human beings.  To be completely honest, I am having a hard time getting over the timing on this one. 

I believe that the victim of a crime should have the space to come forward whenever they are comfortable doing so, but 38 years later at a key moment in the life of the accused that is also of monumental political importance?  How can that not beg the question - Is this about justice or is this about stalling this appointment long enough to see if the Dems can retake congress?  I don't see how it could not raise some suspicions.  Not that the R's don't deserve that after sabotaging Garland, but damn.

Is it so unbelievable that she came forward when the guy who assaulted her became likely to be the fifth lifetime vote against women's reproductive rights?

What about the timing troubles you? She told a therapist about it years ago. Told a good friend last year. Confided in various friends recently that she was unsure about coming forward because of the character assassination and incel mobbing that was sure to come. She passed a lie detector test.

She asked Feinstein to keep it confidential until reporters started digging.

Are Democrats using it as ammo to derail an unfit liar's ascent to the Supreme Court? Sure. Does it make her less credible?

So what is your specific problem with Ford's conduct? She should have sworn a notarized statement in 1980-whatever?

[Ice Queen]

42 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Actually, I think they were more concerned with his relationship with Judge Kozinski.  That wasn't played up as much as it should have been, and he just denied that he ever really saw the awful emails, and everyone moved on.  

My own view is that on some level, it isn't as much what he did or didn't do 35 years ago in high school.  Honestly, there is no way of knowing.  But I do agree that as a Supreme Court nominee, he should be like Caesar's wife.  Sadly, isn't always the standard (see, Thomas, Clarence).  And the better question now is whether he is being truthful.  And if she is more credible than he, then...well....

Didn't he say he wasn't there despite the fact she didn't specify what party it was or the date? Or did I not hear that right? Apparently he used to get falling down drunk...but saying he doesn't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

I agree that SCOTUS nominees should be put under a microscope. They are appointed for life and will shape this country for decades to come. But it seems the GOP at least hasn't learned a thing since Anita Hill. 

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Week said:

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.

Yes, in 2012. Six years ago. She even mentioned him by name.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Didn't he say he wasn't there despite the fact she didn't specify what party it was or the date? Or did I not hear that right? Apparently he used to get falling down drunk...but saying he doesn't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

I agree that SCOTUS nominees should be put under a microscope. They are appointed for life and will shape this country for decades to come. But it seems the GOP at least hasn't learned a thing since Anita Hill. 

I mean, in fairness, I am hard pressed to remember any party at all that I every attended as a teenager (I guess there was the one before I could drive where we got caught on the beltway behind a massive accident before the days of cell phones and my dad freaked the eff out and called the sheriff, but that's all I remember - nothing about the party at all).  And, the parties I attended were pretty tame.  We didn't drink.  We didn't partake of any mind altering substances whatsoever.  But I still don't remember them.  (I was a giant nerd).  

So we're back to who is more credible ....  

[Ice Queen]

1 hour 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.

You're handwaving.  You're disregarding this woman knowing that proof won't be forthcoming and evidence will be in short supply. To you, absence of evidence is enough reason to put him on the highest court in the land. 

This is why women don't come forward. You know you'll be branded a slut and a liar. 

[polishgenius]

21 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

She passed a lie detector test. 

I agree with everything else about your point, so I'm just picking this out because it's come up a lot from both sides in the US on not just this and a variety of issues... why the fuck do you lot set so much store by lie detector tests? I don't think any other country in the world takes them very seriously or considers them reliable evidence. But in the US they seem to get brought up regularly when rating the probability of this incident or trustworthiness of that figure and it utterly baffles me.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, polishgenius said:

I agree with everything else about your point, so I'm just picking this out because it's come up a lot from both sides in the US on not just this and a variety of issues... why the fuck do you lot set so much store by lie detector tests? I don't think any other country in the world takes them very seriously or considers them reliable evidence. But in the US they seem to get brought up regularly when rating the probability of this incident or trustworthiness of that figure and it utterly baffles me.

Agree with this.  Lie detector tests are utter junk science.  

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, in fairness, I am hard pressed to remember any party at all that I every attended as a teenager (I guess there was the one before I could drive where we got caught on the beltway behind a massive accident before the days of cell phones and my dad freaked the eff out and called the sheriff, but that's all I remember - nothing about the party at all).  And, the parties I attended were pretty tame.  We didn't drink.  We didn't partake of any mind altering substances whatsoever.  But I still don't remember them.  (I was a giant nerd).  

So we're back to who is more credible ....  

Agreed. But he categorically issued a denial (if I heard right) without knowing the whens and wheres. 

So far she looks a lot more credible than he does. 

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, polishgenius said:

I agree with everything else about your point, so I'm just picking this out because it's come up a lot from both sides in the US on not just this and a variety of issues... why the fuck do you lot set so much store by lie detector tests? I don't think any other country in the world takes them very seriously or considers them reliable evidence. But in the US they seem to get brought up regularly when rating the probability of this incident or trustworthiness of that figure and it utterly baffles me.

I don't put much stock in them, but it's one piece of evidence, vs the categorical denials from known perjurer Kavanaugh and "Bart O'Kavanaugh would never do that" testimonials from a messy drunk rape apologist.

And you can bet that if she'd failed a lie detector test, the Sweet Peas and the King Neds of this thread who claim to not pay much attention to this sort of thing would be all over that piece of data.

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, in fairness, I am hard pressed to remember any party at all that I every attended as a teenager (I guess there was the one before I could drive where we got caught on the beltway behind a massive accident before the days of cell phones and my dad freaked the eff out and called the sheriff, but that's all I remember - nothing about the party at all).  And, the parties I attended were pretty tame.  We didn't drink.  We didn't partake of any mind altering substances whatsoever.  But I still don't remember them.  (I was a giant nerd).  

So we're back to who is more credible ....  

People do tend to remember with a lot of details terribly traumatic events even while they work hard at suppressing the memories for years and years.  I am speaking personally about this.

I also do remember a lot about a whole lot of parties, starting with the childhood birthday parties that were part of the culture where I grew up.  That I can do that makes it really hard to always successfully repress all the memories of more than one terribly traumatic experience that happened later.  Just sayin' and throwing it into the mix, which is why my entire bias is to believe Ford, not Kavanaugh.

[Ser Reptitious]

58 minutes ago, S John said:

I believe that the victim of a crime should have the space to come forward whenever they are comfortable doing so, but 38 years later at a key moment in the life of the accused that is also of monumental political importance?  How can that not beg the question - Is this about justice or is this about stalling this appointment long enough to see if the Dems can retake congress?  I don't see how it could not raise some suspicions.  Not that the R's don't deserve that after sabotaging Garland, but damn.

Why is that so hard to believe? I mean, imagine you were the one assaulted and you tried your very best to move on with your life and not makes waves (knowing the immense difficulties it would likely cause you if you made a formal complaint or went public). But then, many years later, the person who caused this psychological trauma that you just can't get rid of, no matter how hard you try, is about to get appointed to a leading position in your society, with immense influence on the future direction of same. Wouldn't you figure that maybe, just maybe, that might be the time to step forward with what happened, regardless of the likely unpleasant consequences to yourself?