US Politics: Judge Dread

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yeah but was he treated the same way she was? Far from it. Ford wasn't even questioned properly, the senators spent most of their time praising her and declaring her a brave hero. Of course she acted with more composure. She wasn't humiliated like Kavanaugh was.

First off, I disagree absurdly, especially with Kavanaugh's histrionics and the implausible ideas about what Ford actually did (like having a crush on Kavanaugh and making this up as some odd stalker thing), but let's take it for a given that Kavanaugh was questioned more strongly than Ford.

Ford is not applying to be one of the most powerful people in the US. Kavanaugh was also not questioned 'properly' either given the format, and given that the democrats didn't have a prosecutor or coordinated counsel (which was their stupid move, but still). 

And again, none of this matters because Kavanaugh's job is to behave properly. That is literally one of the major rules about being a judge in the US:

 

Quote

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

If you're saying that he got mad because of outside influence, that is EXACTLY the problem. It might be understandable, but it is also massively disqualifying. 

19 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Further great news: North and South Korea begin clearing landmines from the demilitarized zone to recover POW remains. This comes after the announcement that they're planning on officially ending the Korean War by the end of this year. Remind me when the situation has ever been so peaceful and promising in the past? I'm pretty sure never.

Yes, now that the US has accepted that North Korea is a nuclear armed state run by a despotic family, they're behaving a bit nicer while threatening their neighbors with nuclear armageddon. 

[Ice Queen]

12 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Yeah but was he treated the same way she was? Far from it. Ford wasn't even questioned properly, the senators spent most of their time praising her and declaring her a brave hero. Of course she acted with more composure. She wasn't humiliated like Kavanaugh was.

Bullshit. He came out angry, mean and nasty, and that was AFTER Grassley fawned all over him and before anyone even asked him any questions.

 

[Kalbear]

And another note on the land mine thing - they were cleared before, in 2007, when things were going nice for about twelve seconds. This is yet another thing North Korea does, repeatedly - small gestures that don't do shit, and end up reverting to type a few months later. 

Quote

Monday's mine clearing is the first of its kind since the Koreas worked together to remove mines and explosives at a few border areas to accommodate now-stalled economic and transportation projects during a previous era of rapprochement in the 2000s. Other deals reached by the defense chiefs include withdrawing front-line guard posts and establishing buffer zones along the land, sea and aerial boundaries where live-fire drills and military flights would be banned.

It also happened in the 90s, and in the 70s. The key difference is that North Korea now has nuclear weapons and long range missiles, and since the trade war with China the US doesn't have as much leverage in giving anything to them. 

[Gertrude]

Trump calling on a reporter at his press-conference and mishearing her - 

Quote

 

Trump: "She’s shocked that I picked her. She’s in a state of shock.

Vega: “Thank you, Mr. President. I’m not.”

Trump: “That’s okay, I know you’re not thinking. You never do.”

Vega: "I’m sorry?

Trump: “No, go ahead.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/01/youre-not-thinking-you-never-do-trump-tells-female-reporter/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.864156090f74

 

You know, every time I think I'm used to Trump and his shit, something blind-sides me. I know this is far, faaaaar from the worst thing he's said or done, but even in the small details he's just such a dick. He can't help it. Seriously, this caught me off guard and I was more knee-jerk angry about this than about some other things that should elicit stronger emotions. Give me back the real timeline, this one sucks.

[Mexal]

A prosecutor that Mitchell trained thinks she did a shoddy job with her memo.

 

[Darth Richard II]

Dude, pea, if you want to at least try and not sound like a troll at least read the articles you link first.

[Chaircat Meow]

18 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Ok.  I didn’t read the article

A good decision on your part.

 

18 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

If you were directly questioned on whether you were ever in a “port-induced haze”, but claimed to never be in a “port-induced haze,” then yes, you would be telling a lie.     That’s not merely telling an abridged or selectively edited biography.   He’s not merely omitting the drunken stupors/ alcohol-induced rage episodes from his personal story.   I don’t think anyone would really take much issue with that.   The problem is that he’s been going so far as to claim a squeaky clean choir boy image, an image that is wholly uncorroborated, and worse, fully contradicted by, everything from his fellow students’ accounts (and I’m not merely referring to Dr Ford and his other accusers, but basically everyone who’s spoken on record about him), to Mark Judge’s memoirs, to his own yearbook entries.     So that’s the problem.   He keeps trying to claim a history that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny,

I argue Kavanaugh may have presented an 'edited biography' and you concur that this does not amount to lying. However, you proceed to claim BK went beyond presenting an 'edited biography' and actually lied. How do you support this?

The crux of the argument appears to lie with the two bold statements.

The first thing to say about this is that I didn't know something could partially or fully contradict something, either things are contradictory or they are not.

And nothing Kavanaugh has said about himself is contradicted by the claims of excessive drinking or the year book notes; excelling academically, being respectful to people, doing service projects are all compatible with being 'a sloppy drunk' if we take the latter statement to mean 'got inebriated at parties and played drinking games.' Most people can presumably lead relatively blameless lives while more than occasionally coming under the influence of some substance (alcohol, ... etc) or another. So I don't understand how this argument gets off the ground.

It maybe that a neutral observer would think 'sloppy drunk' a better characterisation of Kavanaugh than Kavanaugh's self characterisation but the fact someone could justifiably make that judgement doesn't mean BK lied. As I pointed out in my previous post, which behaviours illuminate someone's character the most is quite subjective.  

Furthermore, the thing you say is contradicted by statements/recollections from other people, namely, being 'a squeaky clean choir boy' isn't something Kavanaugh actually said about himself, you and the schoolmate you're quoting there came up with that summary, not him. So the thing contradicted here is actually only your summary of his behaviour, not his. Kavanaugh has not denied drinking quite a bit, he just denies blacking out.

18 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

and keeps telling actual lies when directly questioned  about it (for example, lying that the “ralphing” reference wasn’t about alcohol-induced vomit, but rather a delicate stomach, which itself was told as part of a larger context of lies about whether he’d ever drunk to excess).

Alright, so the slightly different argument here is that we can all have a pretty good guess what 16-18 year old boys meant by things like Renate Alumnius (it ought to be alumnus) and Kavanaugh's interpretations are not very plausible, therefore he was lying. 

How can you know what these boys meant by it, or what Kavanaugh thought they meant by it? At best we can say most 16-18 year old boys would probably be talking about sexual conquests not kisses when they used such a phrase, but even this is bit dubious, it certainly does not bear much weight. 

Anyway, lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that Kavanaugh was lying about this, how serious would that really be? Is it not the case a lie about this could just be one of embarrassment rather than a cover for anything sinister? 16-18 year old boys, in my experience of being one, often boast of things they haven't done to try and impress their friends.

And if it was merely a lie born out of embarrassment that his 16-18 year old self boasted of having sex with someone that he in fact didn't have sex with (and who was still alive and in his social circle) I would not blame him for this.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Yeah but was he treated the same way she was? Far from it. Ford wasn't even questioned properly, the senators spent most of their time praising her and declaring her a brave hero. Of course she acted with more composure. She wasn't humiliated like Kavanaugh was.

You reversed what happened, actually.  Don't you ever get tired of believing we are so stupid and pay so little attention that we don't see what you did there?

[Mexal]

4 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

A good decision on your part.

 

I argue Kavanaugh may have presented an 'edited biography' and you concur that this does not amount to lying. However, you proceed to claim BK went beyond presenting an 'edited biography' and actually lied. How do you support this?

The crux of the argument appears to lie with the two bold statements.

The first thing to say about this is that I didn't know something could partially or fully contradict something, either things are contradictory or they are not.

And nothing Kavanaugh has said about himself is contradicted by the claims of excessive drinking or the year book notes; excelling academically, being respectful to people, doing service projects are all compatible with being 'a sloppy drunk' if we take the latter statement to mean 'got inebriated at parties and played drinking games.' Most people can presumably lead relatively blameless lives while more than occasionally coming under the influence of some substance (alcohol, ... etc) or another. So I don't understand how this argument gets off the ground.

It maybe that a neutral observer would think 'sloppy drunk' a better characterisation of Kavanaugh than Kavanaugh's self characterisation but the fact someone could justifiably make that judgement doesn't mean BK lied. As I pointed out in my previous post, which behaviours illuminate someone's character the most is quite subjective.  

Furthermore, the thing you say is contradicted by statements/recollections from other people, namely, being 'a squeaky clean choir boy' isn't something Kavanaugh actually said about himself, you and the schoolmate you're quoting there came up with that summary, not him. So the thing contradicted here is actually only your summary of his behaviour, not his. Kavanaugh has not denied drinking quite a bit, he just denies blacking out.

Alright, so the slightly different argument here is that we can all have a pretty good guess what 16-18 year old boys meant by things like Renate Alumnius (it ought to be alumnus) and Kavanaugh's interpretations are not very plausible, therefore he was lying. 

How can you know what these boys meant by it, or what Kavanaugh thought they meant by it? At best we can say most 16-18 year old boys would probably be talking about sexual conquests not kisses when they used such a phrase, but even this is bit dubious, it certainly does not bear much weight. 

Anyway, lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that Kavanaugh was lying about this, how serious would that really be? Is it not the case a lie about this could just be one of embarrassment rather than a cover for anything sinister? 16-18 year old boys, in my experience of being one, often boast of things they haven't done to try and impress their friends.

And if it was merely a lie born out of embarrassment that his 16-18 year old self boasted of having sex with someone that he in fact didn't have sex with (and who was still alive and in his social circle) I would not blame him for this.

I believe the way people know he was lying about is because they talked to students from that time about what the statements meant.

As for why it's a big deal, it goes directly to his character. He claims he didn't drink to excess, that he wasn't a mean drunk, that he treated everyone with respect and because of all of these factors, he couldn't possibly do what Ford is accusing him of. But if you start unraveling all of those lies and you put it against what his Yale roommates are saying, what you get is a picture of a young man who disrespected women he knew, who is known for getting incredibly inebriated and who became mean when he was drunk. When you do that, the picture of whether he could have done what he is being alleged to have done changes drastically. That's the point and continues to be the point. He's lying about small things that goes to his character that is being contradicted by people who knew him which begs the question of what else he's lying about.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Yeah but was he treated the same way she was? Far from it. Ford wasn't even questioned properly, the senators spent most of their time praising her and declaring her a brave hero. Of course she acted with more composure. She wasn't humiliated like Kavanaugh was.

You're missing two points here.

1. Ford was questioned properly. She was questioned by a prosecutor with the explicit instructions to destroy her credibility, hence the memo that was written that her protege even says doesn't live up to the standards she teaches. 

2. Ford is re-living, in front of the country, the greatest trauma of her life, one that she's only told a small group of people, at the same time that her family is receiving death threats and forced from their home into protective custody. Lets not minimize that.

[mormont]

11 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anyway, lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that Kavanaugh was lying about this, how serious would that really be?

Any lie told under oath by a person nominated to be on the highest court in the US is a very serious issue. Not because of the lie. But because it was told under oath. A person who lies under oath, even - in fact, particularly - about trivial matters relating to his own ego, does not respect the law.

[Fragile Bird]

*momentary break*

The man who created Judge Dredd has just passed away. Carlos Ezquerra has just passed away at age 70 from lung cancer.

Thanks to The Wertzone for passing on that news.

*resume arguing*

[aceluby]

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

Any lie told under oath by a person nominated to be on the highest court in the US is a very serious issue. Not because of the lie. But because it was told under oath. A person who lies under oath, even - in fact, particularly - about trivial matters relating to his own ego, does not respect the law.

Isn't that what got Clinton removed from the bar?

Which begs the question, if he does get through the nomination process and the ABA concludes he lied under oath and removes his bar, can he legally still sit on the SCOTUS?

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, SweetPea said:

Further great news: North and South Korea begin clearing landmines from the demilitarized zone to recover POW remains. This comes after the announcement that they're planning on officially ending the Korean War by the end of this year. Remind me when the situation has ever been so peaceful and promising in the past? I'm pretty sure never.

Call us when NK denuclearizes.

Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath.

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, SweetPea said:

They're planning on landing astronauts on the Moon by the end of the 2020s, and on Mars sometime in the 2030s. The payoff is innovation, tons of new research and technology, which always leads to advancements here on Earth. The government wastes money on a lot of things, but NASA isn't one of them.

I guess it's not great news if you don't really care about space exploration. For those who do, this is exciting news. I can't wait to see the Moon landing live, since I wasn't alive when the last one happened.

Plans don't mean shit. Get to me again when they authorize the funding necessary to start doing this shit. I'm predicting NASA will be lucky not to have its budget slashed since the current administration is going after NASA's earth science division.

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The man who created Judge Dredd has just passed away.

Totally called it.

[Morpheus]

I’ll care when they stop denying and suppressing NASA’s climate change data and when they stop pursuing corporation enriching deregulation which contributes to that change.

[Gertrude]

52 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

How can you know what these boys meant by it, or what Kavanaugh thought they meant by it? At best we can say most 16-18 year old boys would probably be talking about sexual conquests not kisses when they used such a phrase, but even this is bit dubious, it certainly does not bear much weight. 

Anyway, lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that Kavanaugh was lying about this, how serious would that really be? Is it not the case a lie about this could just be one of embarrassment rather than a cover for anything sinister? 16-18 year old boys, in my experience of being one, often boast of things they haven't done to try and impress their friends.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html

 

Quote

“You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”

Dude, while I don't think there is any place where Kavanaugh outright lied in a way that you can say 'aha, gotcha', I also have some serious misgivings about his overall truthfulness. He's technically or plausibly truthful rather than actually truthful. Look at that 'poem' above and tell me whether it's more believable that they were boasting sexually about Renate (kisses or otherwise) or if it was a mutual admiration society as Kavanaugh claims.

I've thought he was not telling the whole truth before Ford's accusation came out. It's not plausible that he didn't know about the stolen emails from Leahy. Sure, maybe he believed it at the time and was ok with receiving information via spying, but to deny that he never suspected they were stolen even after that whole scandal surfaced at the time is highly implausible to me. If he's not lying, he's too dense to sit on the bench at any level.

The other thing that really stuck out to me during the last hearing is that he would not commit to an FBI investigation. He talked all around it and didn't say yes, do it. This has the appearance of hiding something. There is enough doubt in my mind of his commitment to the truth that I don't want him on the SC. 

I also absolutely understand why he wants to put his best foot forward with an edited version of himself in highschool/college. If he gives Ford's claim any credibility, there's still a chance he could be charged. I completely get it and to an extent, don't blame him. I just don't want that guy who is more concerned about covering his own ass than telling the truth and believing that will be enough to exonerate him to be elevated.

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Anyway, lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that Kavanaugh was lying about this, how serious would that really be? Is it not the case a lie about this could just be one of embarrassment rather than a cover for anything sinister? 

Hmmm, what did Kavanagh think about that line of thinking when it came to Bill Clinton and Monika Lewinski? 

[Martell Spy]

White House Tells F.B.I. to Interview Anyone Necessary for Kavanaugh Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — The White House has authorized the F.B.I. to expand its abbreviated investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh by interviewing anyone it deems necessary as long as the review is finished by the end of the week, two people briefed on the matter said on Monday.

The new directive came in the last 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. The F.B.I. has already completed interviews with the four witnesses its agents were originally asked to talk to, the people said.

Mr. Trump said on Monday that he favored a “comprehensive” F.B.I. investigation and had no problem if the bureau wanted to question Judge Kavanaugh or even a third accuser who was left off the initial witness list if she seemed credible. His only concerns he said, were that the investigation be wrapped up quickly and that it take direction from the Senate Republicans who will determine whether Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed.

“The F.B.I. should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden after an event celebrating a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. “But they should also be guided, and I’m being guided, by what the senators are looking for.”

The revised White House instruction amounted to a risky bet that the F.B.I. will not find anything new in the next four days that could change the public view of the allegations. Republicans have resisted an open-ended investigation that could head in unpredictable directions. But the limited time frame could minimize the danger even as it heightens the likelihood that F.B.I. interviews do not resolve the conflicting accounts.