"[M]any Kavanaugh foes are eager to implement a new standard that they would never agree to live under themselves"
[Aaron Blumer]I feel bad for Dr. Ford. It doesn’t seem unlikely to me that someone did something terrible, and terrifying to her. It just doesn’t look likely that BK was involved.
This has become so politicized on both sides of the aisle it is crazy. Today it is the Democrats, if the tables were turned it would be the Republicans. Unless something comes out in the hearing, though, this is where I lean. Something did happen to Dr. Ford, but there is not evidence of any kind, and I would argue that there is probably evidence that specifically excludes Kavanaugh.
The Ramirez story out today, is even worse. The New York Times passed on the story because there was no credibility to it. Ramirez can’t conclude that it was Kavanaugh, just after 6 days of working with her lawyer to reconstruct her memories that she feels that it might be Kavanaugh. The New Yorker interviewed almost 2 dozen people that were at the party and none of them said that Kavanaugh was there.
Look, if the guy did it, he needs to face the music. But all of this is so stretched that it hold practically no truth and reality at the end of the day diminishes what really happened to these women. Everyone is worried about smearing the women, but still nothing points to Kavanaugh, yet he is being run through the mud. The only thing that I am hearing to support these women, is that “why would someone come out and say these things?”. First, people come out and say all kinds of weird things. Why did Crystal Magnum come out and accuse the Duke Lacrosse Team of rape when it never happened. The fact that someone undergoes some hardship for telling a version of events, does not guarantee truth. Second, no one is denying that something probably happened, just that nothing is pointing to the fact that this in particular happened.
I don’t see equivalence on “both sides” in this. While some on the alleged right have leveled inappropriate and stupid attacks on BK’s accusers, it remains true that
- His accusers are not already well vetted SCOTUS appointees.
- GOP has never gone after Democrat appointees on anything even close to the scale of what we saw with Bork, Thomas, and now Kavanaugh.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Just ask this question: “How do you KNOW this happened?”
In addition, if you’d like to lose some sleep, imagine if someone publicly accused you of this kind of behavior. It’s happened. What would you do? And when the dust settles where do you go to get your reputation back?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Behind this question I believe is the presumption that the truth is the accused is truly innocent, and the accuser is coming out to make the accusation even though she knows its false. So given that scenario, why would she come out and say these things?
Well, there is the political angle…you know, to take down a conservative SCOTUS nominee. Prevent him from getting on the court where he might limit abortion rights for example. Some may object and say, really, would someone be willing to go thru this to score that sort of political win?
Well wasn’t it just over a year ago when a man tried to stop Republicans by grabbing a rifle and going to the Republican baseball practice where he attempted to kill as many Republican congressmen as he could before losing his life? Some people are, perhaps, more committed to political causes than those who post on SI.
Again, I am not saying with certainty that is the motive in this instance, I am simply proposing an answer to the question raised, given the presumptions behind the question.
[Aaron Blumer]I don’t see equivalence on “both sides” in this. While some on the alleged right have leveled inappropriate and stupid attacks on BK’s accusers, it remains true that
- His accusers are not already well vetted SCOTUS appointees.
- GOP has never gone after Democrat appointees on anything even close to the scale of what we saw with Bork, Thomas, and now Kavanaugh.
Well, the Republicans did not have to do that with Garland because they refused to allow him a hearing in the first place. That was slimy, disgusting politics on a level that is way arguably worse than what we are seeing now. Face it, neither side is the “good guys.” Republicans are no better than Democrats in any way I can see and neither cares much about truth here. They are just thinking in terms of political wins. If Republicans cared about truth, they would delay this process to ensure there was a possibility that truth could be discovered. Instead, they are trying to end this as soon as possible, refusing to even subpoena witnesses, etc.
Darrell, perhaps the better way is to expand, so to speak, the Venn diagram. A person is making testimony X because one of the following is true:
- They believe it is true, and it is
- They believe it is true, but it is not,
- They don’t believe it is true, but they have ulterior motives
The challenge is to figure out which category this is, and some of the data I’ve seen indicates that the prosecutor or detective must admit “there is insufficient evidence to proceed.” The scariest thing I’m seeing these days is to confuse the 2-8% that are found to be actual lies with a presumption of guilt on the part of the accused. I admire a lot of what Boz Tchividjian does, but when he says (along with others) we can presume an accusation is true, he just lost me.
And Greg, so defaming a man’s reputation is just the same as denying him a job? Seriously?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1044342149259644928
“I was a virgin through high school and college”
Well, the Republicans did not have to do that with Garland because they refused to allow him a hearing in the first place. That was slimy, disgusting politics on a level that is way arguably worse than what we are seeing now. Face it, neither side is the “good guys.” Republicans are no better than Democrats in any way…
Right, because using a perfectly legal process (Garland) to avoid confirmation is exactly like destroying a man’s reputation in order avoid confirmation.
I am so glad I don’t live in that world.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Well, the Republicans did not have to do that with Garland because they refused to allow him a hearing in the first place. That was slimy, disgusting politics on a level that is way arguably worse than what we are seeing now. Face it, neither side is the “good guys.” Republicans are no better than Democrats in any way…
Right, because using a perfectly legal process (Garland) to avoid confirmation is exactly like destroying a man’s reputation in order avoid confirmation.
I am so glad I don’t live in that world.
LOL, so Aaron, what special information do you have that gives you license to accuse the Democrats of purposefully trying to destroy his reputation? That is certainly not proven in any capacity based on information I have so you must have insider information to feel comfortable smearing them? Oh you don’t? Got it…
You get to have your opinions but you don’t get to have your own facts.
Both sides are playing this politically rather than based on what truth is. Both sides are sleazy not only in this situation but in pretty much everything else going on politically. And when Republicans start thinking they have some kind of moral superiority, they can remember that they regularly enable the biggest sleazeball of a president that hopefully any of us will ever experience.
Well, Greg, beyond the fact that everything Feinstein and Ford (et al) are doing is designed to slow the process down, and beyond the fact that four people implicated in the first scandal have denied it ever happened, and beyond the fact that dozens of people implicated in the second “scandal” have denied it ever happened, and beyond the fact that Ford took steps to hide her whole digital life prior to Feinstein bringing the matter up, and beyond the fact that Feinstein sat on the matter for close to a couple of months before going public just at the worst possible time, and beyond the fact that a Democratic lawyer/activist admitted sitting with the second complainant for a whole six days to persuade her that the rumor actually happened and that she ought to step forward, and beyond the fact that complainant #2 admits she never saw any such thing…
….not much beyond that, Greg. Like you said, you get to choose your own opinion, but not your own facts, and in this case, there are a ton of facts which indicate that no unbiased prosecutor would ever take these accusations before a grand jury, let alone before a regular jury. Maybe Mike Nifong or something, but not anyone deserving the title.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I do agree that not only have both sides made this a bit of a mess. But in the end all sides in Washington will do whatever it takes to push their agenda in. Whether you agree with Trump or not, Trump is doing it on a grand scale from the side of the Republicans as there leader. Trump does more than his fair share of dragging people through the mud. Lets put things into perspective.
What is interesting is the lens that the #MeToo movement has created as it relates to our past. I was sitting at the dinner table telling my kids the things that I observed in High School of what boys did to girls that was permissible. They were shocked to learn that it was common practice to snap a girls bra strap in school (both Christian and Public) - as one example. They said you would get into a ton of trouble at their school (public) if you did something like that. I don’t say that to belittle anything that a girl may have gone through, or to justify anything. Just to show the harshness that history sometimes has on something that was done in a permissible climate.
LOL, so Aaron, what special information do you have that gives you license to accuse the Democrats of purposefully trying to destroy his reputation?
Just the info we all have and the “license to reason” that comes with having a pulse…. And anyone who checks can see that I have used the language of probability, not certainty.
“Increasingly looks like…” etc.
Still glad I don’t live in a world where a standard legal political maneuver (Garland) is morally equal to denying a man the opportunity of a lifetime by slandering him before a nation of more than 300 million people (Kavanaugh).
… which appears to most likely be what’s being attempted here.
Of course people in both parties do some despicable things at times, but that’s not really relevant for evaluating what’s happening in this particular case, right now in front of the whole nation.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
….that really scare me here are:
1. The insistence that since “only” 2-10% of accusations are proven false, it doesn’t matter, no harm done. Um, tell that to the tens of thousands of guys (and ladies) who get their reputations destroyed, their bank accounts drained to pay lawyer’s fees, and lose jobs and relationships because of them. If the law doesn’t work for them—if their perjurers are not punished—then it doesn’t work for the rest of us, either.
(plus, a portion of the accusations that simply get flagged “insufficient evidence to proceed” are likely false accusations, too….we could theoretically end up with tens of thousands more when that is accounted for)
2. The insistence on never-ending investigations, even when multiple attempts to corroborate the story have failed. One would think that at a certain point, honest people on all parts of the political spectrum would say “nothing pans out here—this simply isn’t a case that a good prosecutor would go forward with” and let it go. But increasingly, that’s not what I see, as in this case. “Everybody but the accusers says there’s nothing there, let’s do a wild goose chase where the investigators don’t even know where to look.”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion