Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

Even this second accusation may be enough to disqualify him despite any innocence/guilt. A single accusation with no actual evidence should, IMO, never be sufficient to disqulify a public servant on. Things are too partisan and, in this case, high stakes for a single unsubstantiated accusation to hold much water. How easy would it be in the future for either party to produce someone to make an accusation in this type to torpedo a candidate they cannot otherwise stop.

It becomes much more difficult when you add a second person to the mix to do so nefariously without all sorts of added risk or complications.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

Ah, so you're going to bash me now. Fun.

Why would someone make a false accusation? Could be personal motives. Could be partisan political motives. The latter we know exist. I have no idea about the former. Hell, it could be something else entirely.

What standard of evidence should we want, and why?

Arguing that not giving someone the job doesn't constitute something that needs justification is futile. The guy's going to get the job unless the objection has merit. Republicans have the majority, and have no particular reason to do anything other than put him in, unless one of the objections against him appear to be well founded enough to gain traction with the general public. So far, it doesn't seem that they will.

But instead of actually talking about why he may be guilty, you're just resorting to calling me names. Okay.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Even this second accusation may be enough to disqualify him despite any innocence/guilt. A single accusation with no actual evidence should, IMO, never be sufficient to disqulify a public servant on.
To clarify something (because people keep saying it like it's true, and it absolutely isn't): There is evidence of her accusation. Specifically, the therapist notes. That's evidence that corroborates her claim.

Again -- it's only "not-evidence" if you think women randomly make up experiences with sexual assault to tell their therapists about... or save up their experiences with sexual assault so they can insert the names of people they don't like into them like the most fucked up game of Mad Libs ever.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:38 pm UTC

Question. What's to stop politicians from hiring people to discredit rivals with false sexual assault accusations? It's not some far-fetched idea; Honeypotting is fairly established in intelligence agencies, and there was that time that General Motors tried to frame Ralph Nader for rape or something like that back in the 60's and barely faced a consequence for it. The only drawback is blowback from being caught, which I would think is only an issue if you are dumb enough to leave a paper trail or do it so often that enough testimonies can come out at once a la Harvey Weinstein.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:38 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Even this second accusation may be enough to disqualify him despite any innocence/guilt. A single accusation with no actual evidence should, IMO, never be sufficient to disqulify a public servant on. Things are too partisan and, in this case, high stakes for a single unsubstantiated accusation to hold much water.


This is fucking nonsense.

If this were what were going on, then why didn't it happen with Gorsuch? After all, Gorsuch was much more problematic from a Democratic standpoint.

Y'all are just grasping at straws at this point.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:42 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Question. What's to stop politicians from hiring people to discredit rivals with false sexual assault accusations?
This isn't relevant, because -- once again -- her therapist notes corroborate her claim.

To put in the words of the immortal bard, Jeff Foxworthy: If you think women lie about sexual assault so they can use the account later for political gain... you might be a misogynist.

<cue laugh-track>

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:46 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Chen wrote:Even this second accusation may be enough to disqualify him despite any innocence/guilt. A single accusation with no actual evidence should, IMO, never be sufficient to disqulify a public servant on.
To clarify something (because people keep saying it like it's true, and it absolutely isn't): There is evidence of her accusation. Specifically, the therapist notes. That's evidence that corroborates her claim.


The therapist does not corroborate. Well, the therapist corroborates that an incident was brought up, but the specifics differ. This is from the wikipedia summary of the accusations. Ford says that this is a mistake on the therapists part. The therapist's notes do not mention Kavanaugh.

So, we can have fairly high confidence that back in 2012, she mentioned an incident to her therapist, but the rest is contradicted, not confirmed by the therapist's account.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:47 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:To put in the words of the immortal bard, Jeff Foxworthy: If you think women lie about sexual assault so they can use the account later for political gain... you might be a misogynist.



...or someone who actually did have a false "rape attempt" accusation levied at them, which was quickly disproven by the initial police investigation but still.

User avatar
Euphonium
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:17 pm UTC
Location: in ur bourgeois bosses' union, agitating ur workers

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Euphonium » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:50 pm UTC

I see you've progressed to outright denying reality now.

Tyndmyr wrote:Why would someone make a false accusation? Could be personal motives.

What would those be? At least we have someone (Dr. Ford) willing to put her name and reputation behind her claims that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. What, exactly, do we have to suggest that she had a personal motive (other than sexual assault) to try to undermine Kavanaugh's nomination? You're presenting a claim with less evidence for it than the one you're arguing against.

Could be partisan political motives. The latter we know exist.

Those motives existed for Gorsuch, and were even stronger given the circumstances of his nomination. So why didn't this come up then?

I have no idea about the former. Hell, it could be something else entirely.

And what, exactly, makes you think any of these possibilities are more likely than "she's telling the truth."?

What standard of evidence should we want, and why?

For a seat on the Supreme Court, "is it more likely than not that they tried to rape someone?" seems appropriate.

Arguing that not giving someone the job doesn't constitute something that needs justification is futile. The guy's going to get the job unless the objection has merit. Republicans have the majority, and have no particular reason to do anything other than put him in, unless one of the objections against him appear to be well founded enough to gain traction with the general public. So far, it doesn't seem that they will.


The fact that at least a handful (but enough to potentially tilt the vote if they come down as "No," given how slim the GOP majority is) are expressing serious reservations, enough to force the GOP to slow down the breakneck schedule they had originally hoped for, suggests that there's a significant chance that the public outrage over this very well could be enough--certainly enough of a chance that it's worth it to try and keep someone who probably tried to rape someone off the Supreme Court.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:53 pm UTC

Leovan wrote:
Opus_723 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
No change as in "no impact". Getting him disqualified would be a change as a result of the accusation.


Why is the neutral, fair option to give him everything he wants? If that's neutral, what the hell is the Pro-Kavanaugh bias option? We give him cookies, too?


Pro would be him suing his accuser for defamation and being rewarded cash for emotional damages.

The status quo is he's a circuit judge and the president wants to make him a supreme court justice. If the accuser can't prove guilt, we go back to him being a circuit judge and the president wants to make him a supreme court justice.

As I understand, in the US, to sue for defamation you have to prove the accusations are untrue. So, if pro-Kavanaugh means he sues her for defamation, then pro-Ford means Kavanaugh goes to jail for sexual assault. Those seem like the extreme ends of the spectrum to me. We're mostly talking about what to do in the face of almost no evidence, or some evidence either way. With the centre being hotly disputed.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:55 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:...or someone who actually did have a false "rape attempt" accusation levied at them, which was quickly disproven by the initial police investigation but still.
Huh? I don't know what you're talking about or how it's relevant.

Also, whatever Tyndmyr said, I can't see it and I'm not clicking to find out what it was (because he's an emotionally abusive dickhole). I'll just presume that whatever it was, it was dumb.

(Also also: Please don't quote my posts, Tyndmyr. I seriously don't want to see notifications from you. I've told you this; you are aware of this. It doesn't require much effort on your part to just not include my name in the quote block.)

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:56 pm UTC

Gorsuch there was no way to sufficiently delay things, there was plenty of time to confirm him or someone else. And my point was to the hypothetical where any accusation should be sufficient to not hire someone. For a position this political and this partisan I dont feel that is in any way workable.

As for the therapists notes, didnt they mention the wrong number of people involved to which Ford simply said “the therapist must have made a mistake”. That’s not super convincing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

Euphonium wrote:I see you've progressed to outright denying reality now.

Tyndmyr wrote:Why would someone make a false accusation? Could be personal motives.

What would those be? At least we have someone (Dr. Ford) willing to put her name and reputation behind her claims that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. What, exactly, do we have to suggest that she had a personal motive (other than sexual assault) to try to undermine Kavanaugh's nomination? You're presenting a claim with less evidence for it than the one you're arguing against.


Many people enter the public spotlight with dubious claims all the time. The fact that someone is willing to go public with something is not proof of it's validity. Sure, hear the claims out? That's fair. But the mere fact of an accusation doesn't guarantee that accusation's validity.

Could be partisan political motives. The latter we know exist.

Those motives existed for Gorsuch, and were even stronger given the circumstances of his nomination. So why didn't this come up then?


I am not supposing some grand conspiracy in which democrats are carefully orchestrating accusations based on which are strategically ideal. If they possessed that level of power and organization, they could probably have gotten Clinton elected.

So, the existence of a strategically superior time doesn't really matter.

I have no idea about the former. Hell, it could be something else entirely.

And what, exactly, makes you think any of these possibilities are more likely than "she's telling the truth."?


The contradictions with her therapist and the person she named as a witness would be good reasons to doubt her account. These are not complete proof, of course, but they do bring up a reasonable doubt.

What standard of evidence should we want, and why?

For a seat on the Supreme Court, "is it more likely than not that they raped someone?" seems appropriate.


Okay, so, preponderance of evidence. I'm on board with this. If we believe he more than likely did it, well, he shouldn't be on the court. What evidence is there that he did it?

Arguing that not giving someone the job doesn't constitute something that needs justification is futile. The guy's going to get the job unless the objection has merit. Republicans have the majority, and have no particular reason to do anything other than put him in, unless one of the objections against him appear to be well founded enough to gain traction with the general public. So far, it doesn't seem that they will.


The fact that at least a handful (but enough to potentially tilt the vote if they come down as "No," given how slim the GOP majority is) are expressing serious reservations, enough to force the GOP to slow down the breakneck schedule they had originally hoped for, suggests that there's a significant chance that the public outrage over this very well could be enough--certainly enough of a chance that it's worth it to try and keep someone who probably tried to rape someone off the Supreme Court.


Unlikely. I think they believe it's politically advantageous to hear the Democrats out. The "we have nothing to hide" approach. The appearance of coverup can be politically worse than a crime, after all.

But suppose you're right. Which Republicans in a position to vote for confirmation are expressing serious reservations?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Again -- it's only "not-evidence" if you think women ... save up their experiences with sexual assault so they can insert the names of people they don't like into them.
Well, of course they do. Why else would women go out and get themselves raped if not to have something to use against male culture? (Requisite link to supporting documentation.)

..... and now I need to bleach my fingers and find a way to stop rolling eyeballs without damaging them. Should have worn iridium contact lenses, maybe? I should stop my eyes rolling before I bleach my fingers.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:03 pm UTC

Chen wrote:As for the therapists notes, didnt they mention the wrong number of people involved to which Ford simply said “the therapist must have made a mistake”. That’s not super convincing.
...yeah, uh, no, that's -- look, do you understand how therapy notes work? It isn't a fucking court disposition; there's not some stenographer sitting in the room recording everything you're saying. It's just some person scribbling things down while you talk. She mentioned there were four people at the party; the therapist wrote something down about four people involved in the assault.

I'm sorry, but acting like this somehow reduces the credibility of the claim is pretty fucked up. Like, what; you think she just made it up? And couldn't even bother to get the numbers straight in her head? Which seems more likely to you: She lied to her therapist about a sexual assault carried out by four people years ago, and is now changing her story to involve just one person (who she's now decided is Kavanaugh, because it's politically convenient -- even though she isn't even a politician!), or her therapist just got the notes wrong?

Seriously, the whole "Well her THERAPIST NOTES say FOUR PEOPLE, so that's not very reliable!" argument is a heaping pile of shit.

EDIT: And what, the fact that she didn't mention Kavanaugh by name to her therapist makes the account less credible? That's even more fucked up. So, what; you think she did get assaulted, but she just decided to make Kavanaugh the assaulter, now? Or do you think the assault was a lie this entire time, and she's either been saving it up for a political play or just saw an opportunity to add another lie on top of her initial (pointless) one?

I don't want to throw around terms like 'Rape Apologia' because I don't want to escalate, but come on, use your fucking brains: Nothing about her story is even vaguely incredible or unbelievable.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:07 pm UTC

Yeah, I agree that the therapy notes aren't really evidence against.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

Re: Hippo -You won't see this, but fair enough, I'll avoid a quotation when discussing topics involving you. If you wish to ignore some of the responses, that's up to you.

As for the therapy notes, sure. They may miss some aspects while noting things down. But the specifics are contradictory. It's a mistake that could happen, but the fact that they do not match means that they really don't support Ford's claim.

Also, she(and her Husband) claim that she identified Kavanaugh by name to the therapist, but the therapists notes also do not reflect that. This, potentially, could be something else the therapist chose not to write down. But the lack of a match means that the notes are not support.

Is there any possible evidence that Kavanaugh could give, or which could exist, that would more conclusively demonstrate his innocence?
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Leovan
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Leovan wrote:Pro would be him suing his accuser for defamation and being rewarded cash for emotional damages.

The status quo is he's a circuit judge and the president wants to make him a supreme court justice. If the accuser can't prove guilt, we go back to him being a circuit judge and the president wants to make him a supreme court justice.

As I understand, in the US, to sue for defamation you have to prove the accusations are untrue. So, if pro-Kavanaugh means he sues her for defamation, then pro-Ford means Kavanaugh goes to jail for sexual assault. Those seem like the extreme ends of the spectrum to me. We're mostly talking about what to do in the face of almost no evidence, or some evidence either way. With the centre being hotly disputed.


That's why I picked that, assuming the choices are either "He's guilty", "we don't know for sure", or "he can prove his innocence and therefore her accusation is willfully false".
And yeah, it's two arguments.
  • Is "probably did it, but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt" enough to disqualify someone from nomination to supreme court?
  • Are victim testimony and corroborative evidence from a therapist enough to move from the default "probably didn't do it" to "probably did it, but we can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt"?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:...or someone who actually did have a false "rape attempt" accusation levied at them, which was quickly disproven by the initial police investigation but still.
Huh? I don't know what you're talking about or how it's relevant.


Happened to me. I'm not biased* in favor of accused rapists, I do believe the vast majority of accusations have merit, but I am biased against creating a world where accusations alone are enough.

*As far as I'm aware, of course...

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:14 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Happened to me. I'm not biased in favor of accused rapists, I do believe the vast majority of accusations have merit, but I am biased against creating a world where accusations alone are enough.
I mean, I'm sorry to hear that; that sounds awful and I'm sorry you had to go through it! But I don't see the relevance -- since we are talking here about an accusation with corroborating evidence (the therapy notes).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:16 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Happened to me. I'm not biased* in favor of accused rapists, I do believe the vast majority of accusations have merit, but I am biased against creating a world where accusations alone are enough.

*As far as I'm aware, of course...


I've also seen people accused of things because it was convenient. I saw one chap lodge a sexual assault claim against another to get ahead in a game, once. Worked out well for him, too. Everyone believed the accuser, because he was a more charismatic sort. The fact that nobody else present saw it happen just sort of got shuffled off.

Doesn't mean all accusations are bullshit. Far, far too many are legitimate complaints. But just believing whoever accuses is a horrible thing to do.

Opus_723
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:23 pm UTC

Can we just acknowledge that we are definitively not in "a single accusation" territory since last night? I feel like a lot of people here haven't read the news today.

There is another accusation from his college years now, and a couple of people claiming that they heard about it, and Kavanaugh's involvement, in in the immediate aftermath.
Last edited by Opus_723 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:30 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:27 pm UTC

I'm not up on the newer allegation if something happened last night, no. Have a good summary to link to?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:28 pm UTC


User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:29 pm UTC

Opus_723 wrote:Can we just acknowledge that we are definitively not in "a single accusation" territory since last night? I feel like a lot of people here haven't read the news today.

There is another accusation from his college years now, and a couple of people claiming that they heard about it, and Kavanaugh's involvement, in in the immediate aftermath.
There's that, too -- although honestly, I think the 'single accusation with corroborating evidence in the form of therapy notes from years ago' ought to have been enough to give people pause. Since the alternative narrative we're being sold here is: "Some random woman either lied about a sexual assault years ago, or arbitrarily decided to rebrand that sexual assault so she could cash it in for political capital on behalf of the Democratic party". Which is, apparently, somehow more believable than "A teenage boy got drunk at a party and tried to rape a teenage girl".

But yeah, the second accusation definitely helps cement the first. The corroborating accounts that back that one up help, too.

Nevertheless, I'm sure we'll soon be told that there's a conspiracy of lies predating Trump's election as President that predicted Kavanaugh's nomination by decades and set this all up in advance as an enormous sting operation to take him down.

Imagine if these people used their ability to predict the future for something other than seeding false rape accusations and allegations of sexual misconduct. They'd be fucking invincible.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:30 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote: She mentioned there were four people at the party; the therapist wrote something down about four people involved in the assault.


I can concede this is a reasonable mistake to make. The articles I had read didn't put any extra reasoning in changing from 4 people which I why I felt it difficult to accept as "just a mistake" by the therapist.

Taking that into account, would this be sufficient to not confirm him if there weren't a second accusation? I'm less certain. The cynic in me doesn't like believing anyone for anything, especially when stakes are high. Which I suppose falls both ways here. I don't generally trust people to not be terrible so its easy to believe Kavanaugh could have done this in the same way I could believe people might be willing to lie to prevent Kavanaugh from getting on the Supreme court. I suppose I probably shouldn't be as cynical since there are generally not many false accusations going on. That said, I don't trust Republicans not to do something like this to benefit themselves if the time comes. Considering the Democrats seem to show less stomach for this it seems like it would be a winning (and evil) strategy for the GOP to start employing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:32 pm UTC

Nah, two accusations is enough. Especially if it was from classmates at Yale; anyone with dirty connections can find someone to say stuff for money, but the number of people who both would be willing to make a false accusation and also attended Yale at the same time as Kavanaugh is likely an extremely limited pool.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:33 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Here's the Beeb.


Looks uncorroborated per that article/NYT, yet Hippo's saying it's had multiple confirmations, is there evidence of the latter?

Two reports are significantly more worrisome than one either way, mind you, just trying to clear up an apparent discrepancy.

Opus_723
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:39 pm UTC

I was going to edit the other post but this thread is moving faster than I'm used to.

The New Yorker article doesn't have witnesses, but at least one person (two? I can't remember now) claims to have heard about the incident, and specifically that it was Kavanaugh, in the following days. One of the reporters who broke the story also said today they had emails from Yale alumni discussing the incident before they actually tracked down Ramirez.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17895740/new-yorker-jane-mayer-yale-university-emails-brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:40 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I can concede this is a reasonable mistake to make. The articles I had read didn't put any extra reasoning in changing from 4 people which I why I felt it difficult to accept as "just a mistake" by the therapist.
I mean, even if it hadn't been the case of 'four people at the party' (which it was), it still doesn't detract from her credibility. The therapy notes could have described sixty people, all wearing funny clown noses and dancing merry little jigs while he attacked her. The most relevant bit is that she recalled being sexually assaulted -- because being sexually assaulted isn't something you're prone to forget.
Chen wrote:Taking that into account, would this be sufficient to not confirm him if there weren't a second accusation? I'm less certain. The cynic in me doesn't like believing anyone for anything, especially when stakes are high. Which I suppose falls both ways here. I don't generally trust people to not be terrible so its easy to believe Kavanaugh could have done this in the same way I could believe people might be willing to lie to prevent Kavanaugh from getting on the Supreme court. I suppose I probably shouldn't be as cynical since there are generally not many false accusations going on. That said, I don't trust Republicans not to do something like this to benefit themselves if the time comes. Considering the Democrats seem to show less stomach for this it seems like it would be a winning (and evil) strategy for the GOP to start employing.
The thing is -- okay, if this was a Democratic Senator, there's part of me that would find this all a little weird and creepily convenient. But it isn't. It's some woman who isn't part of the confirmation hearings. Why the fuck would she lie about this? The only argument you can make is that it's some sort of fucked up principled thing ("I must stop Kavanaugh... I'll accuse him of sexaully assaulting me! Quick, call my therapist so we can pull up those notes of that time I described actually being sexually assaulted!"), and the amount of cynicism that requires borders on the delusional.

Put this in perspective: In the court of law, I don't think she'd have a chance. But otherwise? She's got everything to lose and nothing to gain by making this accusation; on top of that, her therapy notes corroborate her account.

In short, I am pretty goddamn certain Kavanaugh tried to rape this lady.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

Welp, that looks pretty bad, then. As Corrupt says, the odds of that many people in close proximity to him happening to be willing to lie(plus match up their lies) becomes far more unlikely. One accusation with a lack of corroboration is one thing, but 3+ people? Unlikely to happen by random chance.

The cynical part of me believes that the Republicans, realizing that their "let the truth come out" strategy has failed, will try to rush through it before anything else can come out of the woodwork.

Opus_723
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:47 pm UTC

Well, I feel a little better. I've been posting on this forum all day a little incredulous that this wasn't being taken at least a little more seriously, but it should have occurred to me that we weren't all up to date.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:56 pm UTC

You'd know what would be darkly hilarious, in a "bwahaha my house is burning, hahaha, someone please give me a hug" sort of way? If Brett doesn't get the nom and it instead gets rushed through to someone else who is far more politically disgusting, like "ban all abortions, remove jus soli citizenship for illegal immigrants*, carbon dioxide is plantfood" disgusting.

*Technically speaking, the US Supreme Court has never ruled as to whether someone born to people not legally residing in the US are citizens.
The court case establishing citizenship was for the child of legal residents from China, who had been in the US for about a decade. De facto, children born in the US are citizens, but nothing legally requires that to be so. "Anchor babies" have always been a bit of an issue for Trump's base. If Trump manages to stack the supreme court, there's a very real possibility that ICE could start** removing US citizens born to either illegal immigrants or aliens on overstayed visas or whatnot, and a very real possibility it'd go to SCOTUS, and a very real possibility that the SC could set a very nasty precedent.


**Well, they already are doing that in some cases, but I mean on a massive scale

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:59 pm UTC

I mean, anyone getting shoved through is likely to be fairly firmly Republican. If they manage to get a nom through at all before the election, it's gonna be someone conservative. How fast can a nomination get shoved through if the Republicans get desperate?

Hopefully that person will be on the more moderate side of Conservativism. Or if hard-line, a Scalia-like approach to being hardline. Mostly relying on historical stuff, not just making stuff up out of whole cloth. I don't much want them to start redefining what a citizen is.

Opus_723
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:03 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You'd know what would be darkly hilarious, in a "bwahaha my house is burning, hahaha, someone please give me a hug" sort of way? If Brett doesn't get the nom and it instead gets rushed through to someone else who is far more politically disgusting, like "ban all abortions, remove juris soli citizenship for illegal immigrants*, putting carbon into atmosphere is good for plants" disgusting.


I'm honestly surprised they haven't ditched Kavanaugh and done this already, especially since the New Yorker article claims that Republican senators knew this second allegation was coming as early as last week. It seems like an easy win to me. Ditch Kavanaugh and nominate someone ridiculously appealing to the base and rush it through. Even if they lose the Senate, which is unlikely, they have until January before the new congress is seated. Sticking with Kavanaugh just seems like wasted capital.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:10 pm UTC

Actually a big fan of Scalia. Fairly strict interpretation of the constitution is the court's job; anything else, and why bother having a constitution?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:11 pm UTC

For anyone saying the therapist's notes don't match the client's story:
Opus_723 wrote:... at least one person (two? I can't remember now) ...
Behold the power of "Chinese Whispers." Have a conversation, try to relay it to someone else later, get them to write down what you told them that the other person told you and if there are any discrepancies between their notes and the pre-written notes used by your interlocutor then those notes never existed? Ugh.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:16 pm UTC

Personally I'm waiting for the Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode based on this whole thing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:18 pm UTC

BREAKING
Third accuser expected


Yeah, let's just assume that Kavanaugh is not fit for SCOTUS

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:19 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Actually a big fan of Scalia. Fairly strict interpretation of the constitution is the court's job; anything else, and why bother having a constitution?


LOL, he didn't strictly interpret the constitution, he always just looked for an excuse to rule in favor of conservatives. He cared about as much about the constitution as Trump does.

Like, even if he did. Fuck that whole "following the rules is more important than right and wrong" bullshit.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdf1973 and 21 guests