Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Jimmy Higgins]

Probably?!

Very.

If Kavanaugh can't even speak the truth about his obvious callousness, why in the world should his word be trusted regarding a sexual assault accusation? About the only truthful thing he said was he liked beer.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Probably?!

Very.

If Kavanaugh can't even speak the truth about his obvious callousness, why in the world should his word be trusted regarding a sexual assault accusation? About the only truthful thing he said was he liked beer.

First, I'd say that one should look at the available evidence, rather than trusting anyone. Their words are also evidence, but how strong or weak it is has to be assessed in context. His denial, on its own, is very weak evidence that he did not do it. But the case is pretty weak, and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that he did.

Second, the things he very probably lied about are things one would expect he very probably would lie about regardless of whether or not he is guilty. That's because he was not only defending himself, but also trying to get a job, and telling the truth about those things would likely flip at least a handful of Republicans. So, even if he did lie, that does not provide any significant amount of evidence for the hypothesis that he is guilty (of the assault + attempted rape).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First, I'd say that one should look at the available evidence, rather than trusting anyone. Their words are also evidence, but how strong or weak it is has to be assessed in context. His denial, on its own, is very weak evidence that he did not do it. But the case is pretty weak, and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that he did.

Second, the things he very probably lied about are things one would expect he very probably would lie about regardless of whether or not he is guilty. That's because he was not only defending himself, but also trying to get a job, and telling the truth about those things would likely flip at least a handful of Republicans. So, even if he did lie, that does not provide any significant amount of evidence for the hypothesis that he is guilty (of the assault + attempted rape).

Best analysis I've seen so far on this forum on this subject.

I would only add that it may be good reason to not want him have the job as Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Elixir]

the case is pretty weak, and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that he did.

I don't believe that a conclusion that he did should be required to disqualify him. For a Justice to be seated on the highest court of the land, we should be certain (beyond reasonable doubt) that he DIDN'T. And that's far from the case.

Second, the things he very probably lied about are things one would expect he very probably would lie about regardless of whether or not he is guilty.

See above. A Judge seeking to be seated on the highest court of the land should not be a liar - PERIOD.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Kavanaugh can't even speak the truth about his obvious callousness, why in the world should his word be trusted regarding a sexual assault accusation? About the only truthful thing he said was he liked beer.

First, I'd say that one should look at the available evidence, rather than trusting anyone. Their words are also evidence, but how strong or weak it is has to be assessed in context. His denial, on its own, is very weak evidence that he did not do it.

Is it? Because the entire dismissal of the accusation has been based on his denial. Had he said he did it, people wouldn't be noting the lack of physical evidence to support Dr. Ford's claim.

But the case is pretty weak, and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that he did.

His testimony actually implied a good quantity of guilt.

Second, the things he very probably lied about are things one would expect he very probably would lie about regardless of whether or not he is guilty.

And this would be applicable if, say his word of denial wasn't the major evidence to support dismissal of Dr. Ford's claims.

That's because he was not only defending himself, but also trying to get a job, and telling the truth about those things would likely flip at least a handful of Republicans.

Kavanaugh could have shot someone during his testimony and that would have just delayed his confirmation by a week or so.

So, even if he did lie, that does not provide any significant amount of evidence for the hypothesis that he is guilty (of the assault + attempted rape).

It indicates that his word is shit, that as a teen he loved bragging about sexual conquests he never partook in, that he was spoiled, self-entitled, and loved to drink (and apparently flatuate).

His testimony attempted to use his daughter and god as a shield, of which there was absolutely no reason for an innocent person to invoke such privilege. His testimony was that of a self-entitled man finally getting what was coming to him.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is it? Because the entire dismissal of the accusation has been based on his denial. Had he said he did it, people wouldn't be noting the lack of physical evidence to support Dr. Ford's claim.

First, that his denial is very weak evidence that he did not do it means that his denial lowers the probability that he did it by a very small amount. But the probability is still nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, no, it is not based only on his denial. Without his denial, the case would still be pretty weak. And in this case, the problems with Ford's testimony yield a case that does not even match preponderance of evidence (see Mitchell's report; and that is without considering the arguments I gave in this thread, partly based on later evidence).

His testimony actually implied a good quantity of guilt.

No, that is not the case. He did not lie about anything one would not expect him to lie if he was not guilty of the assault+attempted rape. As I said, the things he very probably lied about are things one would expect he very probably would lie about regardless of whether or not he is guilty. That's because he was not only defending himself, but also trying to get a job, and telling the truth about those things would likely flip at least a handful of Republicans. So even if he lied (which he very probably did), that is at best a very tiny amount of evidence in support of the accusation.

And this would be applicable if, say his word of denial wasn't the major evidence to support dismissal of Dr. Ford's claims.

It's not, and it would be applicable regardless. It's the way probability works.

His testimony attempted to use his daughter and god as a shield, of which there was absolutely no reason for an innocent person to invoke such privilege. His testimony was that of a self-entitled man finally getting what was coming to him.

I disagree. If I consider the scenarios "Kavanaugh is guilty" vs. "Kavanaugh is not guilty", I don't expect any significant differences in his behavior. What difference would you expect, and why?

 

[Arctish]

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

"Threw her under the bus" how, exactly?

Ford said Keyser was there. Keyser said she didn't remember being there. Was there something else?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1045380447293902849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1045380447293902849&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2018%2F09%2F27%2Fthat-was-insane-christine-blasey-ford-just-threw-friend-leland-keyser-under-the-bus-and-called-her-a-liar%2F

That is a textbook example of how a mined quote can be inserted into a 'recap' of testimony in a partisan way to deceive the reader. It serves as a good reminder to do your own research and take what you read on Twitter with a grain of salt. Thanks for posting it.

Here's the actual exchange:

RACHEL MITCHELL: Are you aware that they say that they have no memory or knowledge of such a party?
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: Yes.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: That’s Ford with the Republicans’ chosen interrogator Rachel Mitchell.
RACHEL MITCHELL: Do you have any particular motives to ascribe to Leland?
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD: I guess we could take those one at a time. Leland has significant health challenges and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs. And she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes and, etcetera, So I’m glad that she’s taking care of herself. I don’t expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.

And here's the <link>.

Did you get that 'threw her under the bus' wording from the same source(s)?

 

[Jarhyn]

First, that his denial is very weak evidence that he did not do it means that his denial lowers the probability that he did it by a very small amount. But the probability is still nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, no, it is not based only on his denial. Without his denial, the case would still be pretty weak. And in this case, the problems with Ford's testimony yield a case that does not even match preponderance of evidence (see Mitchell's report; and that is without considering the arguments I gave in this thread, partly based on later evidence).


No, that is not the case. He did not lie about anything one would not expect him to lie if he was not guilty of the assault+attempted rape. As I said, the things he very probably lied about are things one would expect he very probably would lie about regardless of whether or not he is guilty. That's because he was not only defending himself, but also trying to get a job, and telling the truth about those things would likely flip at least a handful of Republicans. So even if he lied (which he very probably did), that is at best a very tiny amount of evidence in support of the accusation.

And this would be applicable if, say his word of denial wasn't the major evidence to support dismissal of Dr. Ford's claims.

It's not, and it would be applicable regardless. It's the way probability works.

His testimony attempted to use his daughter and god as a shield, of which there was absolutely no reason for an innocent person to invoke such privilege. His testimony was that of a self-entitled man finally getting what was coming to him.

I disagree. If I consider the scenarios "Kavanaugh is guilty" vs. "Kavanaugh is not guilty", I don't expect any significant differences in his behavior. What difference would you expect, and why?

Personally, I would expect, if he were innocent and truthful about having never been untoward with regard to women at parties, to have actually been honest about all the garbage in the yearbook and what it meant and more importantly, WHY he put it in there.

If he wasn't a rapist, he wouldn't be all that embarrassed or shy about telling the committee that he had been forced as a funcrtion of maintaining status to lie about sexual conquests, and to drink even though he was bad at it. In fact, somewhere upthread I gave a pretty good example of what I would have expected from an innocent and forthright person, something that would make me consider him innocent (even if still inappropriate for the bench given his judicial activism).

But that isn't compatible with the reality of his manner, testimony, and the additional evidence involving the beach week letter or any of the July 1 entry on the party, or a lot of other events at the hearing. He was full of shit, and she was nothing but meekly honest and trying really hard to hold it together.

 

[ZiprHead]

Regarding how Ford understood the question, it would not have been reasonable to interpret it in a way that would make what Merrick described not require an affirmative answer. In fact, unless he lied, the previous question should have had an affirmative answer as well. Take a look at the exchange (bold mine).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nscript/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2f7866e40a54

Compare this to what Merrick said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html

“I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”

There is no reasonable way in which that description might be interepreted as not fitting the criteria in the bolded questions above.

But moreover, even if Ford had not understood the questions properly - which, given their clarity, would be her fault -, the fact is that after Merrick's statement was made public (officially, his name isn't public, but that's not the point), his statement was explicitly rejected by McLean and Ford's attorneys:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

Dr. Blasey’s camp also rejected the account. “She stands by her testimony,” a member of her legal team said in a statement.

So, there is no issue of interpretation. There is someone who lied in a sworn statement and/or under oath. We do not know who.

As to your other point, regarding potential "ethical obligation under ethics guidelines for psychologists", I disagree, because:

1. She does not have any such guidelines. He is a research psychologists. The professional guidelines apply to her job, but she was not doing research.
2. Her boyfriend was there - or else, he was lying. If he was there, neither Ford nor McLean could reasonably think there was any confidentiality. But then again, she already must have known that. Else, he lied and committed a felony.
3. She was under an obligation to tell the truth before the Senate. She either knew or should have known that at the time. But her attorneys certainly knew that, and continued to deny Merrick's claims.
4. McLean kept denying it. She is no psychologist. If they're lying, they're falsely accusing Merrick of lying and committing a felony - for all intents and purposes, if not directly. On the other hand, if he is lying, he's committed a felony.

I don't know who did it, but for sure someone lied and committed at least one felony here.

In any case, I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything strongly against her testimony unless you want to say she deliberately is making something up and fooled the polygraph as part of a conspiracy [by George Soros] which I don't believe because it's silly.

It undermines her credibility. There is a reasonable chance that she is lying about that, and further, she keeps accusing an innocent man of what would be a felony.
Of course, there is also a reasonable chance that she is telling the truth, Merrick is lying, and he is trying for whatever reason to derail her case. But that we don't know which one is factored into the probabilistic assessment for the whole thing, considering the probability of her willingness to falsely accuse people of felonies. Obviously, Merrick's credibility takes a hit as well.

That said, I don't think this is decisive or required to conclude there is not a sufficient case here (as I mentioned, you can see Mitchell's analysis for more details).

Why would an FBI agent need coaching about a polygraph test? Having polygraph testing is part of the training program and a requirement to be accepted into training. Each applicant is tested twice, once on drug use and once on espionage activities. Merrick is lying.

https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-inside-background-checks-for-new-applicants.mp3/view

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Personally, I would expect, if he were innocent and truthful about having never been untoward with regard to women at parties, to have actually been honest about all the garbage in the yearbook and what it meant and more importantly, WHY he put it in there.

I mean if he were not guilty of the assault+attempted rape Ford accuses him of, and the other sexual crimes he was accused of. Untoward behavior involves all sorts of sexual behaviors that are not criminal but seriously disrespectful. Their "Renate Alumnius" is untowards behavior. For example:

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

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”

I would expect their lack of respect to happen in other circumstances, very probably at parties as well.

But that aside, why would you expect him to tell the truth?

His chances of confirmation depending on getting a sufficient number of Senators, and he almost certainly would have lost if he had admitted to that. Moreover, if he had admitted to behaving inappropriately in that way, and also had said they were talking about threesomes, etc. (which they probably was), he still wouldn't have been convicted of any sexual offenses. He would have almost certainly failed to get a seat, though.

If he wasn't a rapist, he wouldn't be all that embarrassed or shy about telling the committee that he had been forced as a funcrtion of maintaining status to lie about sexual conquests, and to drink even though he was bad at it. In fact, somewhere upthread I gave a pretty good example of what I would have expected from an innocent and forthright person, something that would make me consider him innocent (even if still inappropriate for the bench given his judicial activism).

I disagree. It would have kept him from getting into the SCOTUS. But that's the only difference. Even if he was guilty, he was not going to be convicted if he had said they were talking about sex, etc., but denied Ford's allegations. The evidence would still not be anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not about being shy or embarrassed. It's about losing his chance at the SCOTUS, and perhaps his standing with his own family.

 

[Arctish]

But that aside, why would you expect him to tell the truth?

He was testifying under oath and therefore required to tell the truth.

He was also a federal judge, therefore he was required to not commit perjury.

If he wasn't likely to tell the truth when testifying under oath then he wasn't fit to be appointed to the Supreme Court, no matter how much Trump and his supporters wanted him there. In fact, if he's so likely to lie he isn't fit to be an officer of any court.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Regarding how Ford understood the question, it would not have been reasonable to interpret it in a way that would make what Merrick described not require an affirmative answer. In fact, unless he lied, the previous question should have had an affirmative answer as well. Take a look at the exchange (bold mine).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nscript/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2f7866e40a54

Compare this to what Merrick said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html

There is no reasonable way in which that description might be interepreted as not fitting the criteria in the bolded questions above.

But moreover, even if Ford had not understood the questions properly - which, given their clarity, would be her fault -, the fact is that after Merrick's statement was made public (officially, his name isn't public, but that's not the point), his statement was explicitly rejected by McLean and Ford's attorneys:


So, there is no issue of interpretation. There is someone who lied in a sworn statement and/or under oath. We do not know who.

As to your other point, regarding potential "ethical obligation under ethics guidelines for psychologists", I disagree, because:

1. She does not have any such guidelines. He is a research psychologists. The professional guidelines apply to her job, but she was not doing research.
2. Her boyfriend was there - or else, he was lying. If he was there, neither Ford nor McLean could reasonably think there was any confidentiality. But then again, she already must have known that. Else, he lied and committed a felony.
3. She was under an obligation to tell the truth before the Senate. She either knew or should have known that at the time. But her attorneys certainly knew that, and continued to deny Merrick's claims.
4. McLean kept denying it. She is no psychologist. If they're lying, they're falsely accusing Merrick of lying and committing a felony - for all intents and purposes, if not directly. On the other hand, if he is lying, he's committed a felony.

I don't know who did it, but for sure someone lied and committed at least one felony here.

In any case, I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything strongly against her testimony unless you want to say she deliberately is making something up and fooled the polygraph as part of a conspiracy [by George Soros] which I don't believe because it's silly.

It undermines her credibility. There is a reasonable chance that she is lying about that, and further, she keeps accusing an innocent man of what would be a felony.
Of course, there is also a reasonable chance that she is telling the truth, Merrick is lying, and he is trying for whatever reason to derail her case. But that we don't know which one is factored into the probabilistic assessment for the whole thing, considering the probability of her willingness to falsely accuse people of felonies. Obviously, Merrick's credibility takes a hit as well.

That said, I don't think this is decisive or required to conclude there is not a sufficient case here (as I mentioned, you can see Mitchell's analysis for more details).

Why would an FBI agent need coaching about a polygraph test? Having polygraph testing is part of the training program and a requirement to be accepted into training. Each applicant is tested twice, once on drug use and once on espionage activities. Merrick is lying.

https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-inside-background-checks-for-new-applicants.mp3/view

Actually, Merrick said that Ford gave McLean advise precisely when McLean was trying to get into the FBI, and had to pass the test. I found a link with the full transcript, except for Merrick's name: https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why would an FBI agent need coaching about a polygraph test? Having polygraph testing is part of the training program and a requirement to be accepted into training. Each applicant is tested twice, once on drug use and once on espionage activities. Merrick is lying.

https://www.fbi.gov/audio-repository/news-podcasts-inside-background-checks-for-new-applicants.mp3/view

Actually, Merrick said that Ford gave McLean advise precisely when McLean was trying to get into the FBI, and had to pass the test. I found a link with the full transcript, except for Merrick's name: https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770.

Do you have a transcript by someone under oath before congress....not from twitter or faked?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not eliding anything. It was not a trial, but a job interview. Of course, it has unusual characteristics. For example, a person may be the enemy of some of the people deciding whether to hire him (as it was clearly the case here), and get the job because his enemies are outnumbered by his allies, who happen to be the enemies of the other people whether to hire him. Weird, right?

Perhaps your standards of comportment are lower than my own. I wouldn't carry myself that way in a job interview -- which this wasn't, for the political dimension you're attempting to deny -- and if I did I could fairly expect to be shot down.

But at the end of the day, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, or even a "preponderance of evidence" standard, and the people making the choice have a big leeway in how they make their choice.

For example, you said:


But that is a job interview. They examine him, and they make their choice, with a lot of leeway.

Now, if he was applying for a spot as night-clerk at the local Stop-n-Go, you might have a point. But when you sit as a judge on the highest court in the land, the expectations (at least for most of us!) are a little higher. Your persistent refusal to acknowledge the gravitas of his position as part of the context of this testimonydoesn't speak well of your point. "It was only a job interview!" -- but even if it was only for the Carl's Jr down the street, as a hiring manager, his demeanor would be off-putting. That he's in your word "interviewing" for a seat on the highest bench in the land, I expect more.

You clearly find his behavior acceptable. We have a fundamental disagreement about how judges should carry themselves.

He was combative against those who had already decided to vote against him - and some of whom were accusing him.
Now, if that hearing had been the only thing we know of him, sure, that would call into question what his ability. But his track record swamps that evidence with a lot more evidence (indeed, I'm not even sure he was being emotional or delivering an Oscar-winning performance to get the political effect he intended). I think there are good reasons to vote against him (especially if Roe v. Wade and other cases were correctly decided). But I don't think evidence agains his ability coming from this hearing is one of them.

You asked what answer I objected to. You quote my reply which is specific, and you start wandering around with unrelated claims. Stick to your own point. Why, exactly, did you ask me that question? Simply to buy more time on the soapbox? Perhaps you could address my concern directly rather than skirt it?

Here, I'll make it easy for you: if I am asked "Have you ever killed another human being?" under oath, my answer would be "No." It would not be "No, have you?" The fact of his trying to turn the question around on his interlocutor is telling.

On the other hand, his reputation was seriously tainted among legal scholars because of that hearing. That gives a reason to vote against: to protect the reputation of the SCOTUS. Of course, if he had behaved in a calm manner, plenty of people would accuse him of being cold, etc., and would still hate him. In short, the reputation of the Court was going to be damaged regardless.

And you know this how? Be specific and link sources, because otherwise I'm just going to regard this as you pulling a supposition out of your keister. You have no idea how he would have been treated, and we both know that.

It is the nature of the the process that begins by impeachment and continues with a trial by the Senate. The person is found guilty if the accusation succeeds. I'm saying is morally wrong to find someone guilty and punish them without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

And I'm saying, "tough shit." It is a political process and it doesn't abide the standards you hold dear. Kavanaugh, Trump, and others should be aware of that fact as well. You should as well.

As I was told as a rank airman, "It is not enough to avoid impropriety; you must avoid the appearance of impropriety." And the fact is that it sure appears like he lied under oath, which I hope you agree is improper. And of all people, a judge and prospective justice ought to be aware of that requirement.

But it's a correct opinion. Why do you think evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings?

Because unlike not getting a job, you get stripped of freedom or even life. Your false equivalence here is silly, and your opinion does not comport with reality or settled thought on the topic.

Yes, that's very probable, though at this point, perhaps more evidence is required from my epistemic perspective. I would need to know more about the interviews of the classmates, etc. But "very probable" is, well, very probable.
As for the follow-up investigation, the results are not public, but it is safe to say that it did not produce more evidence about that, because it was not even trying: they weren't assessing perjury, but sexual offenses.
Also, I think if the FBI were to investigate him for perjury, there is a good chance that they would find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yet you spend thousands of words here defending him, on the basis of an incomplete investigation, and then pronounce a "good chance" of him probably being guilty of a felony which would disqualify him from a judgeship.

I was not talking about the merits of the lie. The content of the lie was irrelevant to the point I was making. Your reply "I really don't care what he lied about" does not engage my point.

This may come as a surprise to you, but this conversation has two sides. I am not bound by your arbitrary limits on what will and won't be discussed. The point you were making, by the way, was definitely about "merit", because you were positing whether or not it would change your opinion of his ability to be a judge. If the content of the lie is unimportant to that judgement, you either shouldn't care, or you should stand against his elevation.

I'm a guy that tries to disambiguate ambiguous assessments, like "unfitness" here, or "disqualifying". So, I considered to senses in which something could be "disqualifying" (a similar analysis would apply to "unfit"), when I said:

As for whether committing the crime of lying under oath is disqualifying, we need to be more precise about what one means by "disqualifying". If the question is whether we should significantly lower our credence that he will do a good job, then the answer is "no", given that his track record as a judge - for good or ill - is far weightier than any such evidence, so it pretty much swamps everything.
On the other hand, if he did lie under oath and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that, then arguably he does not deserve to be in the Supreme Court, so it's disqualifying in that sense.

Note that my assessment was not based on what he lied about, but rather, on whether we are assessing his capability to perform the duties of the job, or his moral character and whether he deserves the job (or more precisely but more cumbersome, whether it is the case that he deserves not to get the job).

You don't get it. Any lie under oath is disqualifying for a "job interview" for a judgeship. We have both legal and ethical standards that seem to surpass yours. A liar can perform the duties of a judge. The question is should we as a society entrust a liar with that authority? My answer is a definitive no.

All the philosophizing in the world isn't going to change that. A dishonest judge is a dishonest judge. I can't put it any simpler than that. If you're okay with dishonest judges, that's on you.

No, it was not. If you want to discuss that, I offer to do so. Your implication I want to avoid that is false (other than my generally wanting to avoid long debates here because it's too taxing, but I already posted when I shouldn't have, so I'm playing already), and so is your implication that I'm a Kavanaugh supporter. I'm not anyone's supporter in this context.

No, you've already said that the nature of his lie might inform your weighing of his ability to sit on the bench, and that goes directly to fitness. Just because I'm addressing standards you don't hold doesn't mean they're not pertinent. Just because it's not what's on your mind doesn't mean it isn't a consideration.

If you don't support him, I'm sorry for my insinuation. But look back over your posts here and tell me it's not an understandable mistake.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It would have kept him from getting into the SCOTUS. But that's the only difference.

If his ambition is more important than his integrity, he probably doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

It really is that simple.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It would have kept him from getting into the SCOTUS. But that's the only difference.

If his ambition is more important than his integrity, he probably doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

It really is that simple.

I agree, but I stand with Angra Mainyu in saying we saw an extremely weak case that he is a rapist or sexual harasser or assaulter, which is what people all over the place have been claiming. He shouldn't be on the court, but he also shouldn't be slandered in that way given no convincing argument or evidence.

 

[Arctish]

It would have kept him from getting into the SCOTUS. But that's the only difference.

If his ambition is more important than his integrity, he probably doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

It really is that simple.

I agree, but I stand with Angra Mainyu in saying we saw an extremely weak case that he is a rapist or sexual harasser or assaulter, which is what people all over the place have been claiming. He shouldn't be on the court, but he also shouldn't be slandered in that way given no convincing argument or evidence.

As a criminal case, it's weak. But this wasn't a criminal trial. It was an examination of Brett Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

It was entirely appropriate for the Senate Judiciary Committee to listen to what Ford had to say about Brett Kavanaugh assaulting her as a teenager. It was entirely appropriate for them to ask a few pointed questions about Kavanaugh's yearbook entries and his reputation as a mean drunk. All of a Supreme Court nominee's past actions are weighed and measured during the nomination process. Sometimes it's rough on the nominee, but the alternative is to have Supreme Court Justices who weren't thoroughly vetted, and that would be worse.

Kavanaugh should have been well aware of what was in store when Trump picked him.

 

[angelo]

But her witnesses and best friend do not verify her accusations.

Well, they weren't in the room when it happened, so is this really shocking?

Surely that fact alone dismissed her case.

No, what led to her accusations being dismissed was that the Republicans controlled the Senate and a Republican President nominated him (and maybe some really dirty stuff in the background).

Isn't that the real reason this raised so much angst in the first place? That Kavanaugh was a Trump nominee? It wouldn't even have raised one eyelid had he been nominated by a Clinton presidency!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, they weren't in the room when it happened, so is this really shocking?
No, what led to her accusations being dismissed was that the Republicans controlled the Senate and a Republican President nominated him (and maybe some really dirty stuff in the background).

Isn't that the real reason this raised so much angst in the first place? That Kavanaugh was a Trump nominee?

Last time I checked, that stolen SCOTUS seat has a Trump appointee sitting in it, so no.

It wouldn't even have raised one eyelid had he been nominated by a Clinton presidency!

Al Franken resigned from the Senate for allegedly brushing someone's butt during a photo op. So... no!

 

[angelo]

Last time I checked, that stolen SCOTUS seat has a Trump appointee sitting in it, so no.

It wouldn't even have raised one eyelid had he been nominated by a Clinton presidency!

Al Franken resigned from the Senate for allegedly brushing someone's butt during a photo op. So... no!

You men THIS Al Franken....................................https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352...on-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand

If so he did much more than accidentally brush someone's arse!