New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think that's a pretty rational post. It's what I think the shooter's motive was. Not sure why that pissed you off so much you remember it to this day.

Moving on....

It didn't piss me off.

Though I rarely agreed with you, I respected your arguments and skepticism until I realized you were willing to ignore what the man said in favor of your political beliefs. It stuck with me for some reason. Much hasn't changed in two years since you posted that.

[Bogative]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

you are evading the question.
If it can be shown that Kavanaugh lied in front of the Committee, would that disqualify him because of perjury?

Yes, if it's an actual lie and not something that he forgot or misremembered.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Bogative

...the left's...

Oops! Your partisanship is showing...

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Actually......I never heard the term "devil's triangle", to mean anything at all. On the other hand, we made up "house rules" to our drinking games, and made up phrases to go with them.

I must agree with "ralphing". I can't imagine it meaning anything other than vomiting, and it would rarely be used except in the context of vomiting due to heavy drinking. As for "boofing", I've only ever heard it used as one thing, but there are local slang variations. (See my earlier post about "hooter" meaning fellatio in my town.) The weird thing is that I don't get why Kavanaugh would lie about that. It appears he did, but I'm at a loss as to why he would.

He seemed sincere when he said it, but of course the idea that we could judge truth or falsehood based on the apparent sincerity of the speaker is laughable.

ETA: But the big mystery is why anyone thinks that the phrase "Have you boofed yet" constitutes evidence in a sexual assault investigation.

To your ETA...

The boofing matter is of course not (directly) related to a sex attack. But if one is forcing booze up into one's bunghole, that is a pretty radical and novel way to ingest it, suggesting a high likelihood of consumption to excess. I mean, if you're getting so bored with the usual means via drinking that you've just gotta force it up into the rectum... Which moreover belies the professed upright paragon of rectitude Kav would have us believe he was at 17. Heh. Instead of rectitude, we could point to his rectumtude.

Lies on top of lies, in spite of taking an oath in that committe meeting to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Re-read that immediately preceding sentence, if you must, and square it with the actions of a Supreme Court aspirant.

[Lurch]

It just occurred to me. Poor young Kav must have been barfing so much because of all the boofing. Shooting the booze into his bunghole with a turkey baster reversed the flow in his GI tract.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Do you believe Kavanaugh's clear and emphatic statements under oath that he never suffered any sort of memory impairment at all as a result of excessive alcohol consumption while in high school?

Was he clear on that? I have the impression he was quite evasive. But I haven't checked a transcript.

I believe he knows he's had blackouts and just wanted to dodge the question.

[Minoosh]

Doing a little digging I found out that Scalia was confirmed with a 98-0 vote. Rehnquist got about two-thirds for both nomination and elevation to chief justice. There were crossover votes from both sides.

How things have changed.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

And the fix is in:



Linky.

I wonder how Flake feels about his "gentleman's agreement". Now when nothing new turns up, the Republican line will be "we did the FBI investigation" and the Democrats will be saying it wasn't sufficient.

Politically they've played the weak hand very skillfully. They've managed to make it look like the only doubts about Kavanaugh is whether he sexually assaulted women, something that is very unlikely to be able to verified or not regardless of the truth.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Was he clear on that? I have the impression he was quite evasive. But I haven't checked a transcript.

I believe he knows he's had blackouts and just wanted to dodge the question.

K was not evasive on the question of having blackouts or memory losses from drinking. He categorically denied EVER having memory lapses due to drinking.

Quote:

Mitchell resumes her questioning and asks him about his drinking.

He remains defiant, exclaiming that he still likes beer.

She asks him about blackouts. He denies having them. He denies being told of things he did not remember while drinking.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...rd/1438266002/

Quote:

From his FOX interview
“Was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?” Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum asked Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh during their interview Monday. “No, that never happened,” the judge replied.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Yes, if it's an actual lie and not something that he forgot or misremembered.

What do you think are the odds that he "forgot or misremembered" everything written in his yearbook relating to sexual or drinking slang?
He "forgot or misremembered" what "boofing", "ralphing", and "devil's triangle" all mean? How convenient.

You think he "forgot or misremembered" what a "Renate alumnius" was when he claimed the term was " used to show affection, to show she was one of us"?
This is the yearbook 'poem' that another boy wrote about Renate:

Quote:

You need a date / and it's getting late / so don't hesitate / to call Renate

K's best bud at the time, Mark Judge, described in his book

Quote:

a heavy drinking culture at the all-boys private school, and writes of one incident where a person named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” vomited in someone’s car and then “passed out on his way back from a party”.

(The Guardian)

When asked by Sen. Leahy if he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh" K became belligerent and accused Leahy of trying to make fun of an alcoholic:

Quote:

“We can sit here and make fun of someone who has an addiction,” Kavanaugh said. “You’d have to ask [Judge].”

K would neither deny nor confirm that he was "Bart O'Kavanaugh".

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Bogative

When anyone says the language he used in his yearbook quotes means something different than what he says they mean.

Huh? What's the conspiracy theory? He's being asked about his behaviour back then and whether his yearbook relates to such behaviour. He says one thing, but a more plausible interpretation suggests it is something else. It's not a conspiracy theory; it's the suspicion that he is lying.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Latest from Trump:



Linky.

Is this true? Is he just referring to what he is claiming to want, and not the FBI's actual instructions?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

He caved under pressure, we need to keep it up.

Umm... hard to say? I would point out that the NBC reporting was that the White House is limiting the investigation, not specifically Trump, and that Trump has loudly proclaimed support for a thorough investgation. Also, to quote the article -

Quote:

White House counsel Don McGahn, who has shepherded Kavanaugh's nomination since President Trump chose him for the high court on July 9, is taking the lead for the White House in dealing with the FBI on the investigation, those involved in the process told NBC News.

It looks like we maybe should be looking more directly at Don McGahn than Trump, in this case, much as it's hard to rule out the possibility that Trump (or possibly Pence) is playing a con game again. Either way, given the extreme shortness of the investigation time, quietly playing a card like that can seriously mess with the quality and success of an investigation even if it were cleared up within a couple days.

[Captain_Swoop]

Trump tweets

"NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!"

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

It shouldn't.

It should, however, be a yellow flag, at the least, for any job that deals with classified information. Heavy drinking increases the risk of divulging classified information, after all.

Regardless, I wouldn't hold the past drinking against Kavanaugh. His perjury, on the other hand, is something that I very much do hold against him.

[Matthew Best]

Some nice person linked to a story about the SNL cold open yesterday with Matt Damon playing Brett Kavanaugh, but the story only seemed to have about 4 seconds of video when I tried to watch it. So here's the full thing:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Some nice person linked to a story about the SNL cold open yesterday with Matt Damon playing Brett Kavanaugh, but the story only seemed to have about 4 seconds of video when I tried to watch it. So here's the full thing:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

"I'm a keg is half-full kinda guy"

That is brilliant. Hell, I wish we got SNL here!!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Some nice person linked to a story about the SNL cold open yesterday with Matt Damon playing Brett Kavanaugh, but the story only seemed to have about 4 seconds of video when I tried to watch it. So here's the full thing:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Bwaaaahaaahaaa! Now, THAT was funny.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I believe the precise wording was "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Yeah but I used that recently and I wanted to vary a bit.

Originally Posted by Bogative

Haven't watched it, yet.

Aw, but you seemed so sure of yourself earlier on. Emulating Dear Leader? He also tosses opinions about things he knows nothing about.

Tell you what, how about you actually watch it before you form an opinion, and come back with your findings.

Originally Posted by Bogative

Mostly. Nothing that would disqualify him from the position.

SCOTUS judges should be impartial. The very fact that he went on an unhinged rant against the Democrats and blurted out a conspiracy theory should disqualify him immediately.

Originally Posted by BeanieBaby

Name one damn lie
I'll wait

You must be joking. Regardless of whether you like Trump, you can't possibly have missed the hundreds of very public lies he has made.

Quote:

Known liar and womanizing cheat

Projection.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Bogative

As I said in a prior post, I have not watched his testimony yet. You'll have to point out specifically, with proof, what he lied about. Not what you think you lied about.

No YOU watch it, and then we'll talk.

Originally Posted by BeanieBaby

Huevos? Go back to Mexico

Oh... oh, I see. I have to apologise for my previous post. I thought you were serious. I can see now that you're playing a part; presumably to make Trump supporters look idiotic.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

And the fix is in:



Linky.

I wonder how Flake feels about his "gentleman's agreement". Now when nothing new turns up, the Republican line will be "we did the FBI investigation" and the Democrats will be saying it wasn't sufficient.

In addition to this I've seen it reported that they're not allowed to establish when Judge worked at Safeway, something that could help establish a timeline for Ford's claim.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1046160667672100866

Quote:

Supporters of controversial public figure, confronted with evidence that he lied under oath about personal matters not related to his job, deflect by arguing he shouldn't have been asked about such things in the first place, and that asking reflected conspiracy and malice.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Looking at year books is not the problem, calling the man a liar because one wants to believe a made-up word he used means something other than what he says it does.

The people he went to school with apparently don't think it means what he is claiming it means.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Per NYT:



There was a verse that said something like "if you don't have a date, call Renate" which doesn't even rhyme, as far as I can tell.

The football team was listed as "Renate alumni."

The problem is, I don't think anyone could come up with an innocuous meaning for all that. Of course it could all just be a bad joke along the lines of the girl who ****** the whole football team.

Kavanaugh says he kissed her goodnight ... she says they never kissed.

According to Kavanaugh's lawyer they met once at a party and kissed goodnight. According to Kavanaugh's testimony she was one of his group of friends and they went to lots of parties together, and all it means is that she's part of the gang.

Simple, really.

[angrysoba]

Could someone explain to me how it is that the FBI cannot investigate issues like this however they see fit rather than have a time limit, a list of individuals they are permitted to interview and a restrictions on the scope of their investigation?

Explain it to me as if I were Donald Trump.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by River

The tickets would be part of the "memorable" category. The fight certainly could fit into traumatic. I got kicked in the balls, and punched in the face and body multiple times, also choked by a 27 year old man that was 6' 1" and about 240 lbs. I won the fight, but that doesn't mean I didn't get my ass beat too. (i was much younger, and not nearly that built or heavy) I still have a scar from it, though not mentally like Ford just a physical one.

How have you independently verified the details you are remembering, how often do you do so, and when was the last time you did so?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Now, let's pick another random date. Let's say, I don't know, September 11, 2001. Not random? Yeah, that's true. It isn't. Neither is the day that Ms. Ford (allegedly) was assaulted.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mory-accuracy/

Quote:

With emotional events like 9/11, I think we do have better memory for the important details [as compared with a neutral event]—we just don't have great memory for all the details. And we think we do, and that's the real contrast.

[...]

It's important to mention that when we talk about "accuracy" here, we mean accuracy for details like, how did find you find out about 9/11, or who were you with? It's not the case that you don't have a fairly vivid image in your head of the planes crashing into the building. No one's forgetting 9/11 occurred.

Our measure of accuracy is consistency with what people told us in the survey the week after the attack. From that first survey to the second survey a year later, the overall consistency of the details of how they learned of 9/11 was only 63 percent. At the third survey, three years after the attack, consistency was 57 percent. So people were only a little more than 50 percent right for a lot of the details.

So, emotional events - using the specific example you've chosen to use - make the important details (what happened, where it happened, who was present) more vivid, but do not make the other details more likely to be remembered correctly or at all.

This supports the idea that Ford could remember the assault, how it happened, and who was involved and at the party, yet not remember how she got there or how she got home.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

How did she know that Kavanaugh and Judge had a guy named PJ in their circle of friends that summer? Does everyone have a guy named PJ in their circle of friends in the summer of 1982?

Absolutely all of my friends at that time did.

I may not be representative of the general population on this particular point.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1046073727673397248

Quote:

Jesuit mag: rescinds endorsement, says "the nomination should be withdrawn"

ACLU: breaks 98-year policy to oppose a Supreme Court nominee

Harvard Law School: under review if Kavanaugh can teach

American Bar Assoc. and Yale Law: FBI probe required, which Kav failed to support

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1046084598168530944

Quote:

I've thought some more about Kavanaugh's testimony. His lies under oath were not little lies. He specifically lied about "Devil's Triangle" because it was about sex. He specifically lied about "ralphing" because it was about inebriation.

He is accused of drunken sexual assault.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by BeanieBaby

Name one damn lie
I'll wait

OK here you go. As unambiguous as can be. You need read no further than post #1.

What do I win?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/sethabramson?lang=en

Quote:

Document: Kavanaugh gambles, gets blacked out, gets "aggressive," and conspires with his good ole high-school buddies not to be forthright.

Document embedded in tweet.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/DFranklinChi/sta...90113819381761

Quote:

Regardless of who is right about events of 36 years ago, and regardless of how aggrieved Kavanaugh feels – even if he is rightly aggrieved – vowing retribution against a political party is disqualifying. 4/7

https://twitter.com/DFranklinChi/sta...90118080737280

Quote:

Remember, Kavanaugh is a sitting judge. Canon of Judicial Ethics 5(A), (C): “A judge should not … make speeches for a political organization [or] engage in any other political activity.” 5/7

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/Mimirocah1/statu...66137808007168

Quote:

If a witness told me about a simple piece of evidence I could get to help verify or refute her claim when I was a Fed prosecutor & I didn’t even try to get that evidence, I could have been charged with ethical violations. Here the WH is directing that such evidence not be sought.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Bogative

Mostly. Nothing that would disqualify him from the position.

Okay, to summarize
1) you do NOT think that he was "completely honest" during questioning, and
2) you do not care that a supreme court justice is not completely honest during testimony

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Could someone explain to me how it is that the FBI cannot investigate issues like this however they see fit rather than have a time limit, a list of individuals they are permitted to interview and a restrictions on the scope of their investigation?

Explain it to me as if I were Donald Trump.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

[River]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Here's the problem River. Everyone is not you.

Different people respond to situations differently. Your thinking is very much aligned with, I did it, why doesn't everyone else? My father landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. He said some men could and did handle it while others froze and got killed. And you can't tell who's going to freeze until they were in the heat of battle.

Also, memory is one weird thing. I can remember virtually EVERYTHING about from 2 minutes before my sister told me my mother had a pulmonary embolism and passed away and for the hour following that but the rest of that day nothing. That was 40 years ago.

Judging others through your own perspective is really a bit self centered.

Funny how selective people are when it fits their narrative. Lets just all forget about what the accuser said about burned in memories. Lets forget all the inconsistencies involved, and just believe. Right?

[River]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It might not enlighten you River, you may not get the meaning of my comment, but this is an example of why you don't get it. It's from my neighborhood forum:

“I draw a line down the middle of a chalkboard, sketching a male symbol on one side and a female symbol on the other. Then I ask just the men: What steps do you guys take, on a daily basis, to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted?

At first there is a kind of awkward silence as the men try to figure out if they've been asked a trick question. The silence gives way to a smattering of nervous laughter. Occasionally, a young a guy will raise his hand and say, 'I stay out of prison.' This is typically followed by another moment of laughter, before someone finally raises his hand and soberly states, 'Nothing. I don't think about it.'

Then I ask women the same question. What steps do you take on a daily basis to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted?

Women throughout the audience immediately start raising their hands. As the men sit in stunned silence, the women recount safety precautions they take as part of their daily routine.

Here are some of their answers: Hold my keys as a potential weapon. Look in the back seat of the car before getting in. Carry a cell phone. Don't go jogging at night. Lock all the windows when I sleep, even on hot summer nights. Be careful not to drink too much. Don't put my drink down and come back to it; make sure I see it being poured. Own a big dog. Carry Mace or pepper spray. Have an unlisted phone number. Have a man's voice on my answering machine. Park in well-lit areas. Don't use parking garages. Don't get on elevators with only one man, or with a group of men. Vary my route home from work. Watch what I wear. Don't use highway rest areas. Use a home alarm system. Don't wear headphones when jogging. Avoid forests or wooded areas, even in the daytime. Don't take a first-floor apartment. Go out in groups. Own a firearm. Meet men on first dates in public places. Make sure to have a car or cab fare. Don't make eye contact with men on the street. Make assertive eye contact with men on the street.”

― Jackson Katz, The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help

Ignore the facts, think of the feelings River! The FEELINGS!

Let me ask, do you believe in equal rights for everyone?

[alfaniner]

Geez, the Judicial Crisis Network works fast...

New political saturation ad with several old girlfriends stating why Kav must be approved.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The issue is whether Kav's memory is reliable when he says he never engaged in behavior like Ford describes. If he had a history of heavy drinking, let alone blackouts, his claims about his sterling behavior are less believable.

Something in the way he responded to the allegations makes me suspect that he knows he was a blackout drinker and that he might have done things out of character while under the influence.

He has a few non-responsive lines: That he'd never sexually assaulted someone; that he was a virgin in high school; and that no one else remembers that happening (although he probably cast this as they denied it ever happened - which a careful user of language shouldn't do). Plus, his aggressive response to questions if he'd ever blacked out.

I suspect he knows he had a personality change under alcohol and while he is sure he hasn't raped anyone, he is not 100 percent he didn't exhibit aggression when drunk.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Could someone explain to me how it is that the FBI cannot investigate issues like this however they see fit rather than have a time limit, a list of individuals they are permitted to interview and a restrictions on the scope of their investigation?

Explain it to me as if I were Donald Trump.

I'm confused. Do you want the real reason, or what Trump would see as the reason, or how one of his lackeys would convince him? They're all variations on "because he really did do it" anyway.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I suspect he knows he had a personality change under alcohol and while he is sure he hasn't raped anyone, he is not 100 percent he didn't exhibit aggression when drunk.

In the email (allegedly) from Kavanaugh linked just above he's apologizing for being aggressive while blackout drunk. In 2001, twenty years after the incident with Ford.