Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

I'm claiming the high ground.

 

It is easy to claim when your side only leaves it to counteract the other side which is an exercise in futility.

 

If Kavanaugh doesn't make it, blame Chris Dudley, a career 41% shooter that somehow played 15 NBA seasons averaging 3.9 points per game.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/brett-kavanaugh-chris-dudley-police-report/index.html

 

For context, Dudley ran for Oregon governor as a Republican. I did see an interview where Dudley tried to claim he "didnt remember" Kavanaugh being there in spite of the police report, which made me chuckle. He's also been acting as a character witness for kavanaugh.

Not surprisingly, Dudleys speciality in the NBA was playing defense.

 

He's such a tough broseph!



LOL. Dudley's face looks just like Kav's, like how dare you dunk on me / disrespect me / question my temperament for the high court! I LIFT WEIGHTS! *sniff*

 

Whoa, I forgot about that, that was hilarious! At least he didn't get a face full of nuts like Shawn Bradley.

 

one of the more sober things I've read on the topic over the past few days

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/02/is-fords-credibility-undermined-by-her-r

 

I remember when the republicans all asserted that it wasn't about sex with Monica, but about the fact that the President lied about it. I understood the intellectual argument and while correct, I thought it was total BS. It was a vehicle to go against a very effective President.

I hate to say it, but the more I read about how much Kavanaugh has lied, particularly if the writer (not you Nook -- I'm thinking about the article posted over many posts above) stretches on one or two (saying I never went to a party like Dr Ford described is a lie came off as too clever), the more it all becomes noise.

I will say that the eagerness BK showed to go after Clinton on sex and lies makes me think you reap what you sow.

 

The difference is between blacking out and passing out is mainly about memory loss. If you black out, you get so intoxicated that your brain can't process new memories. You could be walking around doing a lot of stupid stuff and not remember a thing.

Passing out is about losing consciousness and not be able to wake up easily. I think the point trying to be made was the Kavanaugh could have blacked out and not remembered assaulting Dr. Ford and having been at the party.

Going to sleep from drinking and passing out is kinda splitting irrelevant hairs.

 

It may be irrelevant to you. It wasn't to Kavanaugh. He felt the need to make a distinction and claimed that he never passed out.

 

Clearly she's hiding something.

 

I'm going with the theory that in the second hearing, the one with the crying, paranoia, and angry outbursts, Kavanaugh was working off of a script that The Donald's handlers coached him up on. I presume he regrets it now.

It was a very Trumpian response. It seems like a very bold and risky gambit to come out swinging. Were I him, I would at least talk with my contacts at the White House before doing it. I would describe not communicating it as reckless. And I dont think a total change like that arises spontaneously. I find it far more likely that it came from the people who originated the whole phenomenon of The Donald.

Maybe they just come out and "wing it" with their testamony. I have no knowledge at all, but I would find that shockingly unlikely.

 

Even if that theory was accurate, why would he regret it? Him coming out strong along with Senator Graham absolutely burying the Senate Democrats is what guaranteed he'd be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

 

Sure, he was trying to impress one particular audience with his hysterics, but how far is that removed from the entitled lout he seems to have been earlier and the noxious garbage jurisprudential trash he heaps upon the less fortunate and his entire career as a warrior for ignoble partisan causes - this stuff is a feature, not a bug. Which is the mask?

 

I used to think one way when I was in my 20s. Three decades later, I'm sometimes appalled at what I used to think.

In any case, Ford is seeing great upside (what's the GoFundMe up to now?

Ok, so tell me about the psychology involved.



It still seems to me that if a woman (or a man) is actually/legitimately assaulted, he or she should go to the police, and quickly, for a few reasons:

a) there's still physical evidence, memories are better, and possible witnesses are still around -- all this is of tremendous help to the victim's case
b) because of a), there's a much better chance to punish an offender or even remove them from society

Speaking more generally, all of this coming out years later is leading the (ostensible) victims to smear and slander the (supposed) offenders, making a court/legal case much less feasible, which in turn is leading to these social media/mainstream media smear campaigns, which significantly erode due process and the presumption of innocence.

Of course, I cannot help but believe that many of these accusers don't want to involve the law, because the accusations cannot rise to the level of credibility for a criminal case. They want to be able to ruin people's lives without the burden of legal requirements and normal standards of proof.

For those sympathetic to the "just believe" mantra, I give you: Brian Banks, UVA/Rolling Stone, Duke Lacrosse team, Mattress Girl, and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head.

I recognize that they are very likely legitimate victims of crime who fear coming forward for any number of reasons: fear, shame, depression, etc. But to me, they have a decision to make, and they ought to make it soon after the event.

I think Pres. Trump was right on point when he spoke to this last week -- "people need to make a choice" -- they either go after the offender in the established legal system -- which is in many ways set up to help and shield such victims -- in a timely fashion; or they let it go. There may be good reasons for the latter choice.

This smearing people years/decades after the fact with scant evidence is reprehensible, in my view.

 

I'm still not convinced that Cosby was not railroaded. What was the evidence that convicted him -- one woman's testimony? (The Temple official). More than one woman's testimony? All many years later? One thing I think we are clearly seeing is that any number of women can be found to press these types of charges, if the financial/political benefit is there. Cosby had clearly challenged the Left/mainstream narrative with his "poundcake" speech, and others like it. But I will concede this on Cosby: at least his accuser went through the established legal system.

 

So why haven't the hearings been about this stuff, rather than (to my mind) the bogus assault charge?

 

So t

So the fact that he admitted giving women drugs did nothing to convince you?

 

First off, they are related because they speak to his credibility.

Second, the issues about him being dishonest to the Congress has come up. Leahy who was lied to has brought it up and discussed an investigation. The other issues mostly came up during his recent testimony.

The only reason that there is an investigation right now is because 3-4 Republican senator’s said they would not support his confirmation without an investigation. McConnell had no choice or watch Kavanaugh fail.

Pressure from the public is the only thing that has motivated any substantive investigation. The Republican leadership wanted to vote some time ago, even though they were aware of the second allegation and the public was not yet.

This is politics from both sides. The only difference is that the Democrats happen to be on the high ground of this issue.

 

Amen. That is how I felt about those alter boys that said they were sodomized by a Priest. No one saw it happen, and a lot of them couldn’t remember the date or stuff like that. At the end of the day these Priests were vilified in many cases by people decades later. I think they just wanted money. Plus the Catholic Church is pro life, so the liberal media was more than happy to railroad them.