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

[Jarhyn]

The testimony of her best friend as well as other friends to verify her story wouldn't stack up in any court.

Some years ago a woman withdrew consent during sex here in sunny Perth. He was charged and jailed for rape, until she let the cat out of the bag one day boasting to a friend that the charge was made up, because she wanted to " get the bastard " for some reason I no longer remember now.

He became know as the 30 second rapist, but ex hon-orated and also received damages for the loss of his freedom.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s265381.htm

And that has absolutely nothing to do with this case, where the witnesses are not expected to remember what (for them) was just another small teenage get-together with folks they barely knew.

Her testimony was shaped as honest testimony is shaped. This does not make it absolutely true, but does make it something worthy of verifying.

Her testimony contained many details that can be verified. Among them is that she was at a house belonging to a compatriot of Kavanaugh with a narrow staircase, at the top of which is a bedroom across from a bathroom.

Kavanaugh' testimony was shaped as dissembly is shaped. This does not absolutely mean that it is a dissembly, but it can be verified from this perspective as such: he lied about many things, dodged many questions, and filibustered others. He was not honest and forthright, and the only thing that comes to mind as to his purposes for doing such are that he has skeletons related to his lies.

But I don't expect you to be honest or forthright or value honesty and forthrightness. I don't expect you to even know what honesty looks like. What I expect from you is dissembly and partisan bullshit. And you never disappoint me there.

All of this seen through the eyes of bias!

But the biggest fail of all, besides her witnesses failure to verify her story, is the fact that she brought all this up many decades later.

No amount of bias changes the fact that she pinned her testimony on verifiable facts, between Judge's summer job, details about location, and a list of people there. There is an extremely similar entry on the calendar, listing all the people Ford mentioned. It happened at a specific house which could be investigated. None of that is "biased". Nor is it biased to note that her testimony is shaped in the same manner as honest testimony is, centered on specific elements and containing few details besides those bright (dark) elements. This isn't bias it is merely fact.

What else is merely fact is that BK made many, many false statements, from denying the kind of get together ever happened (while one was entered in his own calendar), denying ever drinking to excess, lying about discussions of contemporary sexual conquest, and otherwise dissembling and evading.

I'm personally not going to go after the person that raped me. But if I ever saw them poised to have a future representing me, either as an elected official or appointed judge, you can bet I'd bring it up. Your own biggest fail is being unable to understand what motivates people in such situations: broken equilibrium.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to angelo:

I'm personally not going to go after the person that raped me. But if I ever saw them poised to have a future representing me, either as an elected official or appointed judge, you can bet I'd bring it up. Your own biggest fail is being unable to understand what motivates people in such situations: broken equilibrium.

I'm sorry that happened to you. Can you comment more on "broken equilibrium?" I'd like to learn more what that means.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The claim "it's been investigated" is true, even if many people wanted a more detailed investigation. The claim about the witnesses is false, sure.

Therefore, this is the second lie that you've conceded that Kavanaugh told. In front of the whole Senate. And it's obvious to them.

I don't know whether it was obvious to all of them, but sure, I already said he lied.

- - - Updated - - -

He's claiming that alumnius [sic] was in reference to being her friend.

Actually, he is not. He is saying that "We — she was a great friend of ours. We — a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.". It's a way of dodging to some extent the question.

However, "Renate alumnius [sic]" is an objectification of Renate, semantically. Whatever it means--and one can argue over that--it is making her into an abstract thing that a group of guys graduated from. That doesn't sound like being friends and dating but if it is, the act of calling it graduation via "alumnius [sic]" doesn't shed a positive light on what they meant.

However, "Renate alumnius [sic]" is an objectification of Renate, semantically. Whatever it means--and one can argue over that--it is making her into an abstract thing that a group of guys graduated from. That doesn't sound like being friends and dating but if it is, the act of calling it graduation via "alumnius [sic]" doesn't shed a positive light on what they meant.

"Renate alumnius" (or "alumni", or whatever they actually wrote; sources are not in agreement on that) does not indicate that "Renate" denotes an abstract thing. It very probably did not, but a woman - namely, Renate. And it's clear they did not think of her as an abstract thing. But in any case, I agree it's not a positive light. But Kavanaugh dodged saying what it meant. He just said - probably falsely - that it did not refer to sex (which in this context seems to mean "having sex with her").

Renate, upon first learning of it just recently, and not knowing about it back then, because it was done behind her back, presumably had this to say...

Indeed. Note that she is not sure what it means, but clearly realizes that it's bad, and very probably about sex. Still, she says she does not know the meaning.

Also, two witnesses from his prep school talked about what it really means:

I read that. They did not talk about what it meant, in the quotes that are provided.

Sean Hagan, who was a Georgetown Prep student at the time, told the Times that Kavanaugh and his teammates "were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate," and said, "I can't express how disgusted I am with them, then and now."

Hagan and another classmate, who requested anonymity, told the Times that Dolphin was a subject of their boasting. They said Kavanaugh and his friends wanted to memorialize their supposed conquests with the yearbook references.

That does not tell us what the expression meant, though it is one of the pieces of evidence that makes it very likely it was about sex, though it might (improbably) not involve a claim of having had sex with her (e.g., they dated her just because, then dumped her, which can happen with or without sex).

You will no doubt find plenty of Republican graduates of the prep school who also objectified Renate now supporting Kavanaugh. Oh, he's innocent. He meant they kissed and did homework together! Such witnesses are not credible.

Indeed, they aren't. But I remember long ago - back in high school - that the boasting didn't always involve sex, in the sense in which Kavanaugh was talking about it. Kissing, touching, etc., without going further that resulted in boasting as well. It is less probable (that usually happened in earlier years), but I don't think it's certain it wasn't something along those lines. At least, not as far as I can tell.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't know whether it was obvious to all of them, but sure, I already said he lied.

- - - Updated - - -

He's claiming that alumnius [sic] was in reference to being her friend.

Actually, he is not. He is saying that "We — she was a great friend of ours. We — a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.". It's a way of dodging to some extent the question.

However, "Renate alumnius [sic]" is an objectification of Renate, semantically. Whatever it means--and one can argue over that--it is making her into an abstract thing that a group of guys graduated from. That doesn't sound like being friends and dating but if it is, the act of calling it graduation via "alumnius [sic]" doesn't shed a positive light on what they meant.

However, "Renate alumnius [sic]" is an objectification of Renate, semantically. Whatever it means--and one can argue over that--it is making her into an abstract thing that a group of guys graduated from. That doesn't sound like being friends and dating but if it is, the act of calling it graduation via "alumnius [sic]" doesn't shed a positive light on what they meant.

"Renate alumnius" (or "alumni", or whatever they actually wrote; sources are not in agreement on that) does not indicate that "Renate" denotes an abstract thing. It very probably did not, but a woman - namely, Renate. And it's clear they did not think of her as an abstract thing. But in any case, I agree it's not a positive light. But Kavanaugh dodged saying what it meant. He just said - probably falsely - that it did not refer to sex (which in this context seems to mean "having sex with her").

Renate, upon first learning of it just recently, and not knowing about it back then, because it was done behind her back, presumably had this to say...

Indeed. Note that she is not sure what it means, but clearly realizes that it's bad, and very probably about sex. Still, she says she does not know the meaning.

Also, two witnesses from his prep school talked about what it really means:

I read that. They did not talk about what it meant, in the quotes that are provided.

Sean Hagan, who was a Georgetown Prep student at the time, told the Times that Kavanaugh and his teammates "were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate," and said, "I can't express how disgusted I am with them, then and now."

Hagan and another classmate, who requested anonymity, told the Times that Dolphin was a subject of their boasting. They said Kavanaugh and his friends wanted to memorialize their supposed conquests with the yearbook references.

That does not tell us what the expression meant, though it is one of the pieces of evidence that makes it very likely it was about sex, though it might (improbably) not involve a claim of having had sex with her (e.g., they dated her just because, then dumped her, which can happen with or without sex).

You will no doubt find plenty of Republican graduates of the prep school who also objectified Renate now supporting Kavanaugh. Oh, he's innocent. He meant they kissed and did homework together! Such witnesses are not credible.

Indeed, they aren't. But I remember long ago - back in high school - that the boasting didn't always involve sex, in the sense in which Kavanaugh was talking about it. Kissing, touching, etc., without going further that resulted in boasting as well. It is less probable (that usually happened in earlier years), but I don't think it's certain it wasn't something along those lines. At least, not as far as I can tell.

They weren't in "earlier years," but instead the last year or two of high school when guys pretend to have had sex. (with girls).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There isn't One Party Rule.

The Republicans control all 3 branches of government. And Trump controls them.

First, no, Trump hardly controls the Republicans. If he did, the construction of the wall would have begun already - purely for example -, and there would have been no risk to Kavanaugh.
Second, no, the Republicans do not control the SCOTUS. The Justices do, and while 5 of them are conservative, that is neither here nor there. They will not just follow whatever Republicans say. They decide on their own.
Third, federal judges keep getting in the way of Trump's executive orders, etc. They too are part of the government, and sure they too rule, within their jurisdiction. The SCOTUS can't just decide all cases, or most cases.
Fourth, that is not what "One Party Rule" generally means. Would you say that, for example, there is one Party Rule in California, or other states where Democrats have the governorship, the majority legislature, and most Supreme Court members were appointed by Democrats and are at least as left-leaning as SCOTUS justices are right-leaning?

Now, you might say that California is also under the US Constitution, so its government is limited by the US Federal Government. That would be true, but for that matter, the US Federal government - the President, Congress and the SCOTUS - are also constitutionally limited, and neither in practice nor in theory do they rule California as they see fit. The Californian government does a lot of it - most of it, actually.

They weren't in "earlier years," but instead the last year or two of high school when guys pretend to have had sex. (with girls).

Yes, that is what I'm saying, and is one of the reasons I said it's less probable.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First, no, Trump hardly controls the Republicans. If he did, the construction of the wall would have begun already - purely for example -, and there would have been no risk to Kavanaugh.

There is no money for the wall and it's not like they can make Mexico pay for it, even if they wanted to.

There was no risk to Kavanaugh which is why GOP pushed him through even with perjury.

Second, no, the Republicans do not control the SCOTUS. The Justices do, and while 5 of them are conservative, that is neither here nor there. They will not just follow whatever Republicans say. They decide on their own.

Your distinction of Republican and conservative is a distinction without a difference.

Conservatives control the government. Does that make you happier as a way to fucking express it?

Third, federal judges keep getting in the way of Trump's executive orders, etc.

They DID. Now, appeals can go up to the Supremes and rape boy can help pussy grabber to ram changes through.

They too are part of the government, and sure they too rule, within their jurisdiction. The SCOTUS can't just decide all cases, or most cases.
Fourth, that is not what "One Party Rule" generally means.

Oh great, my country is falling apart with bombs and nationalists and Nazis and the grammar police are telling me, "you're saying it wrong. Your country's branches of government are controlled by individual conservatives who all suck ass, not a centralized conservative party that sucks ass. Sometimes they disagree on how much money to give themselves and whether to nominate a rapist."

Would you say that, for example, there is one Party Rule in California, or other states where Democrats have the governorship, the majority legislature, and most Supreme Court members were appointed by Democrats and are at least as left-leaning as SCOTUS justices are right-leaning?

Yes, but only at the state level. If I were in Alabama, under both federal and state conservative rule, that'd be a real shithole.

Now, you might say that California is also under the US Constitution, so its government is limited by the US Federal Government. That would be true, but for that matter, the US Federal government - the President, Congress and the SCOTUS - are also constitutionally limited, and neither in practice nor in theory do they rule California as they see fit. The Californian government does a lot of it - most of it, actually.

They weren't in "earlier years," but instead the last year or two of high school when guys pretend to have had sex. (with girls).

Yes, that is what I'm saying, and is one of the reasons I said it's less probable.

If it is so very probable, then again, Republicans were derelict in their duty to rule of law to not investigate him for obvious perjury he committed, plus the extremely probable perjury. Confirming him was not their duty. So yes it was a scam, like I wrote before.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is no money for the wall and it's not like they can make Mexico pay for it, even if they wanted to.

First, that is not a serious objection. There already is a massive fiscal deficit, made bigger by the latest round of tax cuts. Not to mention military spending. Surely, a bit more deficit would not stop Trump's decision.
Second, actually Trump has been trying to get the wall approved and funded. He has not been successful. This shows that it is not the case that he controls Republicans. He controls some, but not nearly enough to get what he wants done.

There was no risk to Kavanaugh which is why GOP pushed him through even with perjury.

There was. Republicans weren't sure. The FBI investigation helped, but it wasn't clear to Trump or McConnel that they would get enough votes.

Your distinction of Republican and conservative is a distinction without a difference.

No, not at all. But the main point is not whether they vote Republican. It's that it is not the case that whatever the Republican party through its authorities decide (or, for that matter, Trump) will be accepted by the SCOTUS. Not even close.

Conservatives control the government. Does that make you happier as a way to fucking express it?

That's also false, but it's far better than the idea that it's One Party Rule, because it is true that conservatives have more power in the government than non-conservatives. But many of those individuals - conservatives or not - aren't taking orders from a single party.

They DID. Now, appeals can go up to the Supremes and rape boy can help pussy grabber to ram changes through.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...on-deporting-immigrants-under-tps/1517268002/

Now, the administration may well win the case. After all, they are trying to enforce the law and deport people who are over there illegally. But the point is that those judges are not following orders from Trump. Neither are SCOTUS Justices by the way. Maybe Kavanaugh - though I doubt it (ETA: I can't be certain, but close) -, but certainly not the rest. Not even Gorsuch.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../neil-gorsuch-immigration-trump-supreme-court
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e22776-ccc0-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html

Oh great, my country is falling apart with bombs and nationalists and Nazis and the grammar police are telling me, "you're saying it wrong. Your country's branches of government are controlled by individual conservatives who all suck ass, not a centralized conservative party that sucks ass. Sometimes they disagree on how much money to give themselves and whether to nominate a rapist."

It's not about grammar police. It's about your contention about "One Party Rule", and my reply in which I understood that expression by its common usage. If you meant something else, you seem to have misspoken.
Having said that, your claim about falling apart mirrors claims from the right about the US falling apart from leftists actions. While I think both are doing a lot of damage, I don't see the US falling apart any time soon.

Yes, but only at the state level. If I were in Alabama, under both federal and state conservative rule, that'd be a real shithole.

But "only" at the state level, but the state of California does a lot more in terms of ruling within its borders than the US federal government. In short, people living in California hardly live under one-party Republican rule. And people in Alabama can vote. This is not one party rule, but one party winning the elections. It's not even close.

If it is so very probable, then again, Republicans were derelict in their duty to rule of law to not investigate him for obvious perjury he committed, plus the extremely probable perjury. Confirming him was not their duty. So yes it was a scam, like I wrote before.

You claimed that "Allowing someone to perjure themselves over and over after denying a previous President a confirmation of a Justice is not obeying rule of law.".
I'm asking: how are they breaking the law?
And no, they did not have a duty to confirm him. Did they have a legal duty to refrain from confirming him? If so, please explain which law they broke.

 

[Trausti]

Hee hee.

 

[Jarhyn]

Written to angelo:

I'm personally not going to go after the person that raped me. But if I ever saw them poised to have a future representing me, either as an elected official or appointed judge, you can bet I'd bring it up. Your own biggest fail is being unable to understand what motivates people in such situations: broken equilibrium.

I'm sorry that happened to you. Can you comment more on "broken equilibrium?" I'd like to learn more what that means.

I haven't seen, heard from, heard about, or otherwise had any contact with that person. If he is still out there alive in the world, it does not affect me in particular, and I doubt he has had much of a chance to hurt anyone else. I am at a certain state of equilibrium where I don't think about it more than once or twice a month on average, more when there are national discussions about rapists, and less when there are not, but it is generally something I can handle with some measure of detached cynicism. In short, I am at equilibrium.

Similarly, Ford spent her life with relatively little contact of any kind involving Bart O'. She may have occasionally heard about him. She may have even kept tabs on him; I don't really know. But it wasn't like other people were walking up to her every day and talking about the guy. He wasn't in a position to really affect or impact her with his mere existence. It was something she could likely handle with some manner of detached cynicism.

But I can imagine what kind of effect it would have on ME if my rapist were suddenly cast in a popular movie. I would have to see his face and remember. I couldn't just brush it off as a thing that happened a lifetime ago. It would be something continuing to happen NOW. And this is what it is for Ford: a wound mostly healed over, painful, but of a sort of pain that is familiar and even comfortable in that familiarity, but which is now torn open and PRODDED every day by this sudden exposure and regular reminder of his existence, success, an his actions against her.

It is a broken equilibrium, and with a lifetime appointment, it is an equilibrium that may never for her be restored.

 

[angelo]

Written to angelo:

I'm personally not going to go after the person that raped me. But if I ever saw them poised to have a future representing me, either as an elected official or appointed judge, you can bet I'd bring it up. Your own biggest fail is being unable to understand what motivates people in such situations: broken equilibrium.

I'm sorry that happened to you. Can you comment more on "broken equilibrium?" I'd like to learn more what that means.

I haven't seen, heard from, heard about, or otherwise had any contact with that person. If he is still out there alive in the world, it does not affect me in particular, and I doubt he has had much of a chance to hurt anyone else. I am at a certain state of equilibrium where I don't think about it more than once or twice a month on average, more when there are national discussions about rapists, and less when there are not, but it is generally something I can handle with some measure of detached cynicism. In short, I am at equilibrium.

Similarly, Ford spent her life with relatively little contact of any kind involving Bart O'. She may have occasionally heard about him. She may have even kept tabs on him; I don't really know. But it wasn't like other people were walking up to her every day and talking about the guy. He wasn't in a position to really affect or impact her with his mere existence. It was something she could likely handle with some manner of detached cynicism.

But I can imagine what kind of effect it would have on ME if my rapist were suddenly cast in a popular movie. I would have to see his face and remember. I couldn't just brush it off as a thing that happened a lifetime ago. It would be something continuing to happen NOW. And this is what it is for Ford: a wound mostly healed over, painful, but of a sort of pain that is familiar and even comfortable in that familiarity, but which is now torn open and PRODDED every day by this sudden exposure and regular reminder of his existence, success, an his actions against her.

It is a broken equilibrium, and with a lifetime appointment, it is an equilibrium that may never for her be restored.

If she's telling the truth about what happened. If not she has received her ten minutes of fame and may fade from view.

 

[Jarhyn]

I haven't seen, heard from, heard about, or otherwise had any contact with that person. If he is still out there alive in the world, it does not affect me in particular, and I doubt he has had much of a chance to hurt anyone else. I am at a certain state of equilibrium where I don't think about it more than once or twice a month on average, more when there are national discussions about rapists, and less when there are not, but it is generally something I can handle with some measure of detached cynicism. In short, I am at equilibrium.

Similarly, Ford spent her life with relatively little contact of any kind involving Bart O'. She may have occasionally heard about him. She may have even kept tabs on him; I don't really know. But it wasn't like other people were walking up to her every day and talking about the guy. He wasn't in a position to really affect or impact her with his mere existence. It was something she could likely handle with some manner of detached cynicism.

But I can imagine what kind of effect it would have on ME if my rapist were suddenly cast in a popular movie. I would have to see his face and remember. I couldn't just brush it off as a thing that happened a lifetime ago. It would be something continuing to happen NOW. And this is what it is for Ford: a wound mostly healed over, painful, but of a sort of pain that is familiar and even comfortable in that familiarity, but which is now torn open and PRODDED every day by this sudden exposure and regular reminder of his existence, success, an his actions against her.

It is a broken equilibrium, and with a lifetime appointment, it is an equilibrium that may never for her be restored.

If she's telling the truth about what happened. If not she has received her ten minutes of fame and may fade from view.

And then we get back to the ethical imperative here that you consistently fail on: trust but verify: trust her to the extent of verifying her claims, of which there are a number of material elements which can be verified enough for reasonable confidence in her testimony, which even if not a strong enough standard to convict should definitely produce enough doubt in K's worthiness for the position he is in, and thus a strong enough standard to impeach, even if not to imprison.

 

[blastula]

Hee hee.

There might be something actionable.

New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh

 

[Trausti]

Hee hee.

There might be something actionable.

New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh

Really does show how this was all an irrational spectacle and that people are too quick to believe the most outrageous things to slander someone if it aligns with their prejudices. Though don't anticipate anyone will acknowledge their own error here.

 

[ZiprHead]

So they'll investigate Swetnick and Avenatti but not the guy vying for a lifetime judgeship on the Supreme court?

 

[Elixir]

So they'll investigate Swetnick and Avenatti but not the guy vying for a lifetime judgeship on the Supreme court?

Of course they will. Hell - they're still barking about BIN-GOZZYMALES!

 

[Trausti]

So they'll investigate Swetnick and Avenatti but not the guy vying for a lifetime judgeship on the Supreme court?

Should really read the link blastula posted.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hee hee.

You laugh at an abuse of the criminal process?

 

[Trausti]

Hee hee.

You laugh at an abuse of the criminal process?

You're not following. The NBC article blastula cited describes how Avenatti knowingly submitted a false declaration to the judiciary committee. It's the reason for the second referral to the FBI. In short, Avenatti submitted an anonymous sworn declaration purported to support Swetnik's allegations against Kavanaugh. But the declarant told NBC news that she informed Avenatti, before he sent out the declaration, that the allegations in the declaration - e.g., that Kavanaugh spike the punch and was aggressive towards girls - were false. I understand that many have invested time and emotion in believing that Kavanaugh is a very bad terrible no good guy. I also understand that for these same people it's difficult to admit you've been taken for a fool.

 

[blastula]

There might be something actionable.

New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh

Really does show how this was all an irrational spectacle and that people are too quick to believe the most outrageous things to slander someone if it aligns with their prejudices. Though don't anticipate anyone will acknowledge their own error here.

All? No, non sequitur.

 

[ZiprHead]

Hee hee.

You laugh at an abuse of the criminal process?

You're not following. The NBC article blastula cited describes how Avenatti knowingly submitted a false declaration to the judiciary committee. It's the reason for the second referral to the FBI. In short, Avenatti submitted an anonymous sworn declaration purported to support Swetnik's allegations against Kavanaugh. But the declarant told NBC news that she informed Avenatti, before he sent out the declaration, that the allegations in the declaration - e.g., that Kavanaugh spike the punch and was aggressive towards girls - were false. I understand that many have invested time and emotion in believing that Kavanaugh is a very bad terrible no good guy. I also understand that for these same people it's difficult to admit you've been taken for a fool.

And your not following. Kavanaugh lied under oath and Rethuglicans didn't care.