|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I don't think there's a rug big enough to sweep this under, but the republicans are sure as hell going to try.
|
On September 28 2018 14:23 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:15 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:10 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:06 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:04 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 Introvert wrote:
...
I understand, in that situation, doing what they did with Anita Hill, even though we know it would amount to nothing. But this behavior of last minute reveals cannot be rewarded or it becomes the norm. Since we know it wont find anything anyway, dont indulge it. Who is this "we"? most people at this point acknowledge you won't find anything. So instead of a vague "we" you're going with a vague "most people" instead. Do you intend to put bones on this or are you just blowing smoke? Everyone who Ford named says they don't remember it. That's all there is to it, what more could you find? Well, you could firmly establish the credibility of Kavanaugh's claims about his general behaviour around that time. You could establish whether Kavanaugh is in fact the person described in whats-his-name's memoir. You could find out who remembers the party in question and who was at it, regardless of whether they saw the specific incident. I wouldn't expect to find a smoking gun but (a) if one exists I wouldn't want to not find it because due diligence was not done (b) more information cannot hurt If you really want to be annoying about my use of "we" then have at it. I surrender. The background check, so far as I understand it, covers much of that already. They talk to friends and family, former employers, etc. Besides, his general behavior at the time is irrelevant. We are asking about a specific crime, at an unspecific time and place. If Judge's book really is a quasi-fiction that he wrote to help cope with his addiction then it's even less useful than it was before. The crime which the FBI would be tasked with "investigating" is a dead end, and that's really the long and short of it. This crime, against this woman, is completely unknowable. edit: "more information can't hurt." We have no chance of getting more, and instead we reward a blatant stalling tactic that will be used in the future. So we'll never get timely accusations of anything ever again. Terrible idea. You really think Mark Judge's terse statement is sufficient and nothing would be gained by testing his credibility in person? Multiple people have accused him of pretty heinous things. I think that warrants more than a few lines from his attorney.
You didn't answer the question. Whether Mark Judge was a raving drunk or not doesn't tell you jack-all about this crime. He's not going to retract his statement, espeically since every other person named also denies it. I think his credibility could be as low as possible and it wouldn't matter because no one could possibly contradict him.
|
United States44191 Posts
On September 28 2018 14:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 13:55 KwarK wrote:
The idea that the timing is somehow suspicious for her to come out now, but not 30 years ago, is really bizarre to me. Republicans are claiming she's only coming out now because he's being considered for SCOTUS, which is absolutely true and also the point. She didn't come out publicly years ago because he was just some asshole who attacked her as a teenager years ago. But then people wanted to put him on SCOTUS and she went "wait a second, that's the motherfucker who attacked me, hell no".
It's not strange or coincidental that these allegations emerged during the process, it's exactly when you'd expect them to emerge. Hell, it's the only time at which it would be rational to dig that shit up. It would have been hugely irrational for her to speak out about it at any other time. Her credibility would not have been enhanced if 10 years ago she went to the police and insisted that President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court sexually assaulted her. You dont quite have the argument right. The right time for this was July, when Feinstein found out. she should have immediately gone back to Ford to seek her permission to share the letter. Then, maybe the FBI, but certainly the Committee, could have begun their work. Ford should have been told, right off the bat, that the letter must be shared with the committee, even if not made public, right away. Instead, a month after she received it (last day of August) she gets back to Ford saying she won't share the letter without permission. Then when the hearings are done, her name is magically leaked to the media. I understand, in that situation, doing what they did with Anita Hill, even though we know it would amount to nothing. But this behavior of last minute reveals cannot be rewarded or it becomes the norm. Since we know it wont find anything anyway, dont indulge it.
Is the timing argument not that clearly this is a lie because why would she not have made the allegation years ago if it weren't a political lie? Because I've seen that argument made a lot.
|
On September 28 2018 14:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:23 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. You could find out that one of the people who said they didn't remember it was lying. From whom would you find this out? She can't name anyone else. You'd go fishing for everyone Ford and Kavanaugh knew in 1982 (and 1983, since Ford herself isn't sure of the year)?
Having a serious conversation with Judge would be a start.
And you could go fishing for some of those people, yes. You wouldn't get them all, but not being able to do a perfect and thorough job is a really bad excuse for not doing anything at all.
|
On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one.
This is an absurd question. Who knows what we will find, that's why you look into it. Nobody knows whose story will crumble under intense scrutiny. The ONLY relevant question is whether there is enough to justify that search. Myself, along with the majority of the country it seems, thinks there is enough to justify a deeper dig. You, Doodsmack, and others believe enough has been done. Nobody is going to be convinced otherwise at this point so let's just get the vote over with.
|
I am by no means an expert in criminal/etc investigative work, but I am fairly confident that chasing down a bunch of dubious possibilities for information that don't turn up anything in the end is par for the course, because you never know which of those unlikely possibilities might work out for you this time.
|
On September 28 2018 14:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:03 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 13:55 KwarK wrote:
The idea that the timing is somehow suspicious for her to come out now, but not 30 years ago, is really bizarre to me. Republicans are claiming she's only coming out now because he's being considered for SCOTUS, which is absolutely true and also the point. She didn't come out publicly years ago because he was just some asshole who attacked her as a teenager years ago. But then people wanted to put him on SCOTUS and she went "wait a second, that's the motherfucker who attacked me, hell no".
It's not strange or coincidental that these allegations emerged during the process, it's exactly when you'd expect them to emerge. Hell, it's the only time at which it would be rational to dig that shit up. It would have been hugely irrational for her to speak out about it at any other time. Her credibility would not have been enhanced if 10 years ago she went to the police and insisted that President Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court sexually assaulted her. You dont quite have the argument right. The right time for this was July, when Feinstein found out. she should have immediately gone back to Ford to seek her permission to share the letter. Then, maybe the FBI, but certainly the Committee, could have begun their work. Ford should have been told, right off the bat, that the letter must be shared with the committee, even if not made public, right away. Instead, a month after she received it (last day of August) she gets back to Ford saying she won't share the letter without permission. Then when the hearings are done, her name is magically leaked to the media. I understand, in that situation, doing what they did with Anita Hill, even though we know it would amount to nothing. But this behavior of last minute reveals cannot be rewarded or it becomes the norm. Since we know it wont find anything anyway, dont indulge it. Is the timing argument not that clearly this is a lie because why would she not have made the allegation years ago if it weren't a political lie? Because I've seen that argument made a lot.
Some might, but I wouldn't call it the majority position, especially after today. And it isn't the position of most (or any, that I saw) of the Senators on the Committee. It is not my position, for which i am currently arguing.
The thing that is most maddening to me about this conversation is how we fly right on by the fact that Feinstein played this in the grossest possible way with the least possibility for justice. It's almost like most Democrats don't really care about that.
On September 28 2018 14:30 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:25 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:23 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. You could find out that one of the people who said they didn't remember it was lying. From whom would you find this out? She can't name anyone else. You'd go fishing for everyone Ford and Kavanaugh knew in 1982 (and 1983, since Ford herself isn't sure of the year)? Having a serious conversation with Judge would be a start. And you could go fishing for some of those people, yes. You wouldn't get them all, but not being able to do a perfect and thorough job is a really bad excuse for not doing anything at all.
Who was I arguing with about this with last night...
but you want to have the FBI go out into the wilderness and track down all of Kavanaugh and Ford's friends about a party that when the only people Ford remembers being there say they don't remember any such party. That's not even asking for a normal FBI investigation, that's something else entirely. But this is supposed to be the obviously reasonable position.
|
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks.
|
On September 28 2018 14:30 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. This is an absurd question. Who knows what we will find, that's why you look into it. Nobody knows whose story will crumble under intense scrutiny. The ONLY relevant question is whether there is enough to justify that search. Myself, along with the majority of the country it seems, thinks there is enough to justify a deeper dig. You, Doodsmack, and others believe enough has been done. Nobody is going to be convinced otherwise at this point so let's just get the vote over with.
No, this is the only question. we don't go prying into people's lives for the hell of it. There is no story to crumble, because there is no story. In fact, the only person who could have her story fall apart is Ford, like when she says she doesn't know who got her to or from the party.
You can want an investigation, but you can't be indignant when there isn't one if you don't even know what the hell you hope to find, good or bad.
|
On September 28 2018 14:37 Introvert wrote:
...
Who was I arguing with about this with last night...
but you want to have the FBI go out into the wilderness and track down all of Kavanaugh's and Ford's friends about a party that when the only people Ford remembers being there say they don't remember any such party. That's not even asking for a normal FBI investigation, that's something else entirely. But this is supposed to be the obviously reasonable position.
I'm fairly sure it's not uncommon procedure in the event of a crime for the police to go door-knocking in the neighbourhood, even though any one of the neighbours is very unlikely to have seen anything. I don't see how this is fundamentally different as an approach. I acknowledge it's more difficult because of the time elapsed.
|
On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks.
Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless.
Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse.
|
On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse.
I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field.
|
On September 28 2018 13:55 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 13:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 11:53 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 10:17 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
... I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with: - Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further - The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time (I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.) Those are tangential and minor facts that just don't add up to much. Yes there are several allegations, but they're not all credible. The accusers are surrounded by Democratic operatives handling them, for one thing. There's just not enough evidence beyond the bare accusation. For example Kavanaugh's reluctance to call for an FBI investigation is just too far removed from the question of whether he was on top of Ford on the bed covering her mouth. Just to be clear, the way I see it there are three options: (1) Declare Kavanaugh is acceptable (2) Investigate further (3) Declare Kavanaugh is not acceptable You are saying that (3) is unreasonable; are you saying that (2) is also unreasonable? In my view the burden on you to justify (2) being unreasonable is much, much higher and you're nowhere near to meeting it. At one point I had said there should be an FBI investigation but after seeing today's hearing I think it is sufficient. The relevant witnesses have put forth statements saying they have no recollection; short of a time portal, there's little the FBI could do. It's not worth the effort. "It's not worth the effort" is a remarkably negligent standpoint for something this important. Show nested quote +...
What changed my mind on this was simply the realization that Kavanaugh might be innocent. You've got to realize the significance and the grotesqueness of falsely destroying an innocent person. The evidence just isn't there.
If he's not innocent, putting him on the Supreme Court would be pretty significant and grotesque too. You keep trying to dodge the downsides of accepting Kavanaugh and only focusing on the downsides of rejecting him. As such, your line of argument is fallacious. Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Many things in life would be a lot easier if it were viable to just naively swallow whatever public statements people make instead of conducting an actual investigation.
I haven't checked your posts but I'm gonna guess you've more or less said Kavanaugh is guilty. Which means you're dodging the downsides of destroying an innocent person. I on the other hand have said the system should be premised on fairness such that Kavanaugh doesnt have the burden of proof, and right now there's not enough evidence. It's a matter of having a system that minimizes false negatives as the best possible system, not "dodging the downsides." Weve had a significant amount of investigation so far, and there arent any other leads. I'm not opposed to an investigation really but you would need to accept the results of "inconclusive" i.e. you dont have enough evidence.
|
On September 28 2018 14:47 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 13:55 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 13:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 11:53 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 10:17 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
... I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with: - Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further - The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time (I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.) Those are tangential and minor facts that just don't add up to much. Yes there are several allegations, but they're not all credible. The accusers are surrounded by Democratic operatives handling them, for one thing. There's just not enough evidence beyond the bare accusation. For example Kavanaugh's reluctance to call for an FBI investigation is just too far removed from the question of whether he was on top of Ford on the bed covering her mouth. Just to be clear, the way I see it there are three options: (1) Declare Kavanaugh is acceptable (2) Investigate further (3) Declare Kavanaugh is not acceptable You are saying that (3) is unreasonable; are you saying that (2) is also unreasonable? In my view the burden on you to justify (2) being unreasonable is much, much higher and you're nowhere near to meeting it. At one point I had said there should be an FBI investigation but after seeing today's hearing I think it is sufficient. The relevant witnesses have put forth statements saying they have no recollection; short of a time portal, there's little the FBI could do. It's not worth the effort. "It's not worth the effort" is a remarkably negligent standpoint for something this important. ...
What changed my mind on this was simply the realization that Kavanaugh might be innocent. You've got to realize the significance and the grotesqueness of falsely destroying an innocent person. The evidence just isn't there.
If he's not innocent, putting him on the Supreme Court would be pretty significant and grotesque too. You keep trying to dodge the downsides of accepting Kavanaugh and only focusing on the downsides of rejecting him. As such, your line of argument is fallacious. On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Many things in life would be a lot easier if it were viable to just naively swallow whatever public statements people make instead of conducting an actual investigation. I haven't checked your posts but I'm gonna guess you've more or less said Kavanaugh is guilty.
Wrong. I expect you to retract this.
|
On September 28 2018 14:40 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:37 Introvert wrote:
...
Who was I arguing with about this with last night...
but you want to have the FBI go out into the wilderness and track down all of Kavanaugh's and Ford's friends about a party that when the only people Ford remembers being there say they don't remember any such party. That's not even asking for a normal FBI investigation, that's something else entirely. But this is supposed to be the obviously reasonable position.
I'm fairly sure it's not uncommon procedure in the event of a crime for the police to go door-knocking in the neighbourhood, even though any one of the neighbours is very unlikely to have seen anything. I don't see how this is fundamentally different as an approach. I acknowledge it's more difficult because of the time elapsed.
That's not even on the same level as the previous hypothetical, but it seems awfully thin as something to get angry about.
"Why won't they let us knock on a few hundred doors three and a half decades later!" doesn't really have a nice ring to it. The most important people in this story have said their piece under penalty. They would say nothing different to the FBI. At least to me, that seems like the start and end of it.
|
On September 28 2018 14:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:30 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:21 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:18 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 14:07 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:03 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Surely you agree that finding out more is preferable to the little we have. Why would we lower the bar for SCOTUS below what even a Prosecuter would use to start an investigation, as Whitehouse pointed out? Like has been said already, there are a number of claims from these women, and Kavanaugh for that matter, which can and should be checked against what other students at the time knew. For example, why not ask the yearbook committee what all that shit in the yearbook meant? I'm blown away that people think this is asking too much. Interestingly the lawyer apparently told the GOP senators later that she didn't even think she'd be able to get a warrant based on what she heard. What lawyer? The prosecutor? Regardless, I find it hard to believe that the fact she brought this up years before she knew Kavanaugh would run for SCOTUS and told people about it show its general credibility. This remains a point I've yet to see a single conservative effectively address anywhere online or on TV. That combined with the polygraph and the contents of Kavanaugh's yearbook should raise any prosecutors eyebrows. Whether it rises to the level of getting a warrant, I dont know (give me a few years on that one). However it definitely shouldn't be brushed under the rug and hidden from the world like Mark Judge. Dude, why is this so hard for everyone. Maybe i'll let Doodsmack handle this insanity. What is it about THIS CRIME, they are going to find out? So, you find out that maybe Judge is unreliable. Ok, well two others ALSO claim they have no memory of this party. It's a dead end. There's nothing to be found except tangential character smears that the Democrats would run with to make Kavanaugh guilty by proxy. What conceivable piece of evidence could you find about this crime? Try to think of one. This is an absurd question. Who knows what we will find, that's why you look into it. Nobody knows whose story will crumble under intense scrutiny. The ONLY relevant question is whether there is enough to justify that search. Myself, along with the majority of the country it seems, thinks there is enough to justify a deeper dig. You, Doodsmack, and others believe enough has been done. Nobody is going to be convinced otherwise at this point so let's just get the vote over with. No, this is the only question. we don't go prying into people's lives for the hell of it. There is no story to crumble, because there is no story. In fact, the only person who could have her story fall apart is Ford, like when she says she doesn't know who got her to or from the party. You can want an investigation, but you can't be indignant when there isn't one if you don't even know what the hell you hope to find, good or bad.
Your belief that there is no story only holds weight if you believe that Ford has been lying for over half a decade, including before it had any political use.
In the end, if you think people are asking for a thorough investigation before giving Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment "for the hell of it," then frankly we are too far apart to have a discussion on this topic.
|
On September 28 2018 14:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse. I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field.
For what it's worth the FBI already said this isn't something they do (state crimes, in particular). I don't know if you saw those posts or not. The SJC would have to make a special request. The FBI wants no part of this.
|
On September 28 2018 14:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:45 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:43 Introvert wrote:On September 28 2018 14:39 Tachion wrote:
I just feel bad for Ford. Maybe Feinstein was playing too much politics with the timing, but she came to bare her soul today for no personal gain and at great risk, and in return she is getting the middle finger saying too bad too late blame Democrats. It all just feels so dismissive of a woman with very genuine concerns, but everyone is too busy playing politics. They gave her a voice and then dismissed it when actually doing anything would just be too inconvenient.
If what Introvert says is actually true, It would take less than a week for the FBI to come back and say that no one remembers shit. I just don't buy it. Something stinks. Last week everyone kept using Anita Hill as an example. That took them three days, and they got a "he said she said" report that Joe Biden went on to call useless. Now, we have some people who think this should be a months long process to search and scour the country for every person either of these two people might have known and query them about a party none of them were ever alleged to be at. I'm not sure which is worse. I mean, if this gets passed to the FBI and they say "we don't see any practical way to investigate this" then fine, we're done. I don't think that's your call to make, or the call of anybody else without expertise in the field. For what it's worth the FBI already said this isn't something they do (state crimes, in particular). I don't know if you saw those posts or not. The SJC would have to make a special request. The FBI wants no part of this.
That's not really the same statement at all. Whether they view it as part of their job (outside of being specifically requested) has nothing to do with their practical capability.
|
On September 28 2018 14:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 14:40 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 14:37 Introvert wrote:
...
Who was I arguing with about this with last night...
but you want to have the FBI go out into the wilderness and track down all of Kavanaugh's and Ford's friends about a party that when the only people Ford remembers being there say they don't remember any such party. That's not even asking for a normal FBI investigation, that's something else entirely. But this is supposed to be the obviously reasonable position.
I'm fairly sure it's not uncommon procedure in the event of a crime for the police to go door-knocking in the neighbourhood, even though any one of the neighbours is very unlikely to have seen anything. I don't see how this is fundamentally different as an approach. I acknowledge it's more difficult because of the time elapsed. That's not even on the same level as the previous hypothetical, but it seems awfully thin as something to get angry about. "Why won't they let us knock on a few hundred doors three and a half decades later!" doesn't really have a nice ring to it. The most important people in this story have said their piece under penalty. They would say nothing different to the FBI. At least to me, that seems like the start and end of it.
In your eyes, why is the American bar association calling for an FBI investigation? How many other potential supreme Court Justice candidates would be recommended an FBI investigation?
|
On September 28 2018 14:47 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 13:55 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 13:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 11:53 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 11:49 Doodsmack wrote:On September 28 2018 10:17 Aquanim wrote:On September 28 2018 10:12 Doodsmack wrote:...
Even assuming that employers are generally unfair in this regard, that doesn't mean we need to be unfair when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.
... I'd also expect a Supreme Court nomination to be held to a higher standard than a common-or-garden job interview. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that the system is unfair if a mere allegation is enough to sink someone. It's not a "mere allegation" at this point. It's several allegations in conjunction with: - Kavanaugh's reluctance to have any of them investigated further - The fibs he appears to have told already about his character and activities at the time (I don't promise this is an exhaustive list.) Those are tangential and minor facts that just don't add up to much. Yes there are several allegations, but they're not all credible. The accusers are surrounded by Democratic operatives handling them, for one thing. There's just not enough evidence beyond the bare accusation. For example Kavanaugh's reluctance to call for an FBI investigation is just too far removed from the question of whether he was on top of Ford on the bed covering her mouth. Just to be clear, the way I see it there are three options: (1) Declare Kavanaugh is acceptable (2) Investigate further (3) Declare Kavanaugh is not acceptable You are saying that (3) is unreasonable; are you saying that (2) is also unreasonable? In my view the burden on you to justify (2) being unreasonable is much, much higher and you're nowhere near to meeting it. At one point I had said there should be an FBI investigation but after seeing today's hearing I think it is sufficient. The relevant witnesses have put forth statements saying they have no recollection; short of a time portal, there's little the FBI could do. It's not worth the effort. "It's not worth the effort" is a remarkably negligent standpoint for something this important. ...
What changed my mind on this was simply the realization that Kavanaugh might be innocent. You've got to realize the significance and the grotesqueness of falsely destroying an innocent person. The evidence just isn't there.
If he's not innocent, putting him on the Supreme Court would be pretty significant and grotesque too. You keep trying to dodge the downsides of accepting Kavanaugh and only focusing on the downsides of rejecting him. As such, your line of argument is fallacious. On September 28 2018 13:52 Doodsmack wrote:
I mean I guess there's no harm to come from an investigation, other than a snowballing media circus, but you guys would also have to accept the results of the inconclusive investigation. reporters have been calling everyone from Kavanaugh's past; the worst we have is that he drank a lot. Many things in life would be a lot easier if it were viable to just naively swallow whatever public statements people make instead of conducting an actual investigation. I haven't checked your posts but I'm gonna guess you've more or less said Kavanaugh is guilty. Which means you're dodging the downsides of destroying an innocent person. I on the other hand have said the system should be premised on fairness such that Kavanaugh doesnt have the burden of proof, and right now there's not enough evidence. It's a matter of having a system that minimizes false negatives as the best possible system, not "dodging the downsides." Weve had a significant amount of investigation so far, and there arent any other leads. I'm not opposed to an investigation really but you would need to accept the results of "inconclusive" i.e. you dont have enough evidence.
Do you really believe the Swetnick story has had a "significant amount of investigation?" It literally came out yesterday and she has said she will testify under oath. They aren't even giving her a chance to talk. If they cared about clearing Kavanaugh's name and not just putting a political opponent on SCOTUS they would look into this one more then they have.
Avennati says they are being ignored.
Source:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
