Believe Accusers!

[Xzi]

As Lindsey Graham rather unexpectedly blurted out yesterday, if you really wanted an investigation it could've started in July.

Were the accusations even public in July? And Democrats had already requested an investigation several times, but a request is nothing more than that. Without the majority party or someone higher up agreeing to it, a request is easily stonewalled. Lindsey was being a disingenuous prick with those statements. His natural state of being.

<commencing rant> How much money does it cost TAXPAYERS to take every little dumb thing to court?

This was a senate panel, not a trial. It costs taxpayers nothing except what we already pay senators. Hearings for supreme court nominees are commonplace.

 

[Hanafuda]

Were the accusations even public in July? And Democrats had already requested an investigation several times, but a request is nothing more than that. Without the majority party or someone higher up agreeing to it, a request is easily stonewalled. Lindsey was being a disingenuous prick with those statements. His natural state of being.

The accusation didn't need to be public. It could've been kept classified in committee, from Day 1. The Democrats never requested or made any effort at an investigation until after Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were over, after sitting on Ford's letter for 2 months. Then they refused to participate with the Committee in conducting an investigation once the story was public.

As for Trump, I really don't think he was in any position to be ordering the FBI to do anything with this until he received a request from the Committee as a whole. The President nominates the candidate, the Senate vets the candidate. I do think he should've also just kept his mouth shut altogether (including Twitter) this past week about Kavanaugh, but Trump's gonna Trump. It would be foolish to think he changed any person's mind one way or the other though.

 

[Xzi]

The Democrats never requested or made any effort at an investigation until after Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were over, after sitting on Ford's letter for 2 months.

Oh c'mon, you know that's bullshit. A cursory Google search shows requests for an investigation from five days ago all the way back to as far as a month ago.

Then they refused to participate with the Committee in conducting an investigation once the story was public.

Again, the senate are not investigators. They're not a proper substitute for investigators either. The investigators are supposed to gather all the facts and hand them over to the senate before hearings are conducted. That way senators have all the facts in front of them instead of just making assumptions.

 

[Tigran]

I'll tell you one of the reasons I tend to believe the accusers more than the accused in many cases like this.

The responce from the accused. They arn't. "Wait... What the hell are you talking about? I supposedly did what?" There is never any... realism to their response, it's almost always. "Whatever we did was consensual."

I mean seriously.. if I was being accused of rape, my first response would be "What the F&&&K? What the hell are you talking about? When?" I mean... those are realistic comments to make, not the almost verbatim every time "it was consensual".

Not to mention the Man can't even keep his story straight, if he could, that would give him more credence, but he can't. And attacking someone who asked as simple question during a Job interview *which this still in reality was*, is not a good sign, neither is almost breaking down and whining "me me me!"

If he had been a Democratic canidate that did that, the republicans would be calling him a "Crybaby snowflake."

 

[granville]

I will preface this to say that yes false accusations do happen. They are disgusting and should be punished extremely severely if discovered. I do not consider the fear of them to be irrational or unreasonable either. I will point towards the Duke Lacrosse case and could mention a lot of others as well. So don't think i'm coming at this with the desire to get rid of due process and automatically assume all women are truthful saints who would never make such a thing up. Before the hearings, I was open minded but still very skeptical about the allegations.

So all of that having been said, the problem is that Kavanaugh during the questioning yesterday did not behave like an innocent man. He made a fool of himself attempting to address his seemingly rowdy college years. Of which includes alleged drinking and sexual promiscuity. Drinking and sex (consensual of course) are not illegal or indicative of someone being a bad person, and he could have just fessed up to this with little to no controversy. He instead attempted to deny the behavior by telling absurd and farfetched stories about what his old fratboy language "really meant". He came across as a dishonest person due to this, even though it was very minor petty crap that he shouldn't feel the need to lie about...

Getting more specifically into the allegations of sexual assault however, Kavanaugh was also extremely hostile towards any suggestion of an investigation. He also refused the request to have him undergo a polygraph test, which in 2016 he himself claimed was a valid tool to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants (and recommended their use by employers to judge potential employees). Now to be quite clear, Kavanaugh was 100% correct when he rebutted that polygraphs are inaccurate and inadmissible in a court of law. But he can't have it both ways. He previously extolled their virtues as a means of extracting truth and has fallen into his own trap.

The governor of Maryland (Larry Hogan, a Republican btw) called for a delay in the Kavanaugh vote until a full investigation is made. The current dean of Yale has also done the same, along with the American Bar Association. The editors of the Jesuit's official magazine "America" have demanded that his nomination be withdrawn outright.

 

[Hanafuda]

Oh c'mon, you know that's bullshit. A cursory Google search shows requests for an investigation from five days ago all the way back to as far as a month ago.

I meant wrt: Ford specifically.

Again, the senate are not investigators. They're not a proper substitute for investigators either. The investigators are supposed to gather all the facts and hand them over to the senate before hearings are conducted. That way senators have all the facts in front of them instead of just making assumptions.

Are you suggesting that is SOP? Other than the exception of the Thomas confirmation, which I explained the FBI's involvement there - Hill alleged a federal offense - when has the FBI conducted an INVESTIGATION of a SCOTUS candidate? I'm not aware of that happening before.

 

[Viri]

Believe Accusers!

Spoiler

Hey guys! Do you still believe me?

 

[bitjacker]

what we already pay senators.
needs to actually be for accomplishing work senators need to do (no bullshit last minute red tape even if it costs 2 seconds)
The government already cripples itself enough from dumb shit.

 

[Ericthegreat]

Please read the entire thing.

You mean the whhhoooollle wooooooorrrd liiiike thiiiiis.

 

[Xzi]

Are you suggesting that is SOP?

Not SOP, no, but nor is this a standard hearing like the one that was held for Gorsuch. When events from the past are in doubt the senate always relies on the FBI to do the gruntwork of digging up all the facts.

 

[Hanafuda]

Not SOP, no, but nor is this a standard hearing like the one that was held for Gorsuch. When events from the past are in doubt the senate always relies on the FBI to do the gruntwork of digging up all the facts.

Well, normal except the Democrats filibustered during Gorsuch. First time since 1968, and why? But I know what you're saying.

 

[Hanafuda]

Even the Bar Association has stepped in and requested an FBI investigation in an unusual move for them.

FWIW this turned out to be false. The current President of the ABA wrote that letter without authority from the Standing Committee that actually reviews and rates judges. Kavanaugh's top rating with the ABA is unchanged and the ABA makes no request for an FBI investigation, but the damage was done thanks to NYT and Senate Democrats running with it. I hate the term but this is an actual example of 'fake news.'

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoNj47EWkAA5uMg.jpg

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Well, normal except the Democrats filibustered during Gorsuch. First time since 1968, and why? But I know what you're saying.

the republicans refused to hear an obama nomination for over 2 years. this is par for the course.

 

[Hanafuda]

the republicans refused to hear an obama nomination for over 2 years. this is par for the course.

Garland was nominated in March 2016, so I'm not sure where you get "for over 2 years." But you won't get an argument from me on this one. I think the Republicans should have held hearings for Garland. Maybe not actually confirmed him, but they should have held hearings. But, that's just 'should have,' and it's just an opinion. The Constitution says the President's nominee gets confirmed with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate. It doesn't say how the Senate will advise, it doesn't say the Senate has to consent. There have been 26 Supreme Court nominations in a Presidential election year, only 8 have been confirmed. Historically, it's a weak situation to be in, going back to the early 1800's. Thurmond said so in the 60's (see Thurmond rule), Biden said so in 1992, Reid and Feinstein said so in the 2008. There's no actual "rule" of course, but it's not 'unprecedented.' It's just a label applied to the situation where the party in power in the Senate is able to say 'fuck off' to a President of the opposing party in his final year.

 

[bodefuceta]

It's amazing how many crimes are forgotten until the perpetrators become close to important positions.

 

[Xzi]

The current President of the ABA wrote that letter without authority from the Standing Committee that actually reviews and rates judges.

So? It was a request for an FBI investigation, not a request to review or change his rating within the ABA.

 

[Wolfy]

Yeahhhhh, I firmly believe that there are way more people who will take advantage of that logic over those who legitimately need it. Just look at the Kavanaugh case going on right now. "Apparently" the accuser talked to Fernstein back in July, but only now when he's close to getting confirmed do they use her? By leaking out her name and address when she wanted to stay anonymous just because it would help their "cause". I feel sorry for the woman, I really do. But she's being used and way too many of her "facts" don't make sense, even her "witnesses" say they did not see Kavanaugh at the party.

This whole movement lately will destroy the world if let it. People please don't be so gullible.

 

[Xzi]

Yeahhhhh, I firmly believe that there are way more people who will take advantage of that logic over those who legitimately need it. Just look at the Kavanaugh case going on right now. "Apparently" the accuser talked to Fernstein back in July, but only now when he's close to getting confirmed do they use her? By leaking out her name and address when she wanted to stay anonymous just because it would help their "cause". I feel sorry for the woman, I really do. But she's being used and way too many of her "facts" don't make sense, even her "witnesses" say they did not see Kavanaugh at the party.

This whole movement lately will destroy the world if let it. People please don't be so gullible.

Did you even watch Ford's testimony? She sure as hell sounded a lot more credible than Kavanaugh who dodged every question. We'll have the facts in a week and I don't think they're going to be favorable to Brett.

 

[Wolfy]

Did you even watch Ford's testimony? She sure as hell sounded a lot more credible than Kavanaugh who dodged every question.

I've seen enough women lying straight to judge's faces even after they've been proven to being the agitator in a case. I don't buy that this is all coming to light now without political motive.

 

[Xzi]

I've seen enough women lying straight to judge's faces even after they've been proven to being the agitator in a case. I don't buy that this is all coming to light now without political motive.

Ford isn't even the one who brought the allegation to light. It was leaked by someone else because she had told people about it as far back as 20 years prior. Might've been her husband or one of her friends who thought better of putting a sexual predator on the supreme court.