Herochat

Kavanaugh Investigation(s)

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2018, 05:44:39 PM »
I’m not a fan of what his jurisprudence will mean for the Supreme Court either. Aside from what you said, he’s too pro-executive power, too expansive in his reading of the Second Amendment, and will likely tilt the Court in even more of an anti-consumer direction. Their recent decisions expanding the First Amendment to strike down labor union laws are especially troubling. I fear he’ll help push that to another level.

That said, here’s four more Georgetown prep students who say that despite the Urbam Dictionary definition, “Devil’s Triangle” was a name they came up with for a drinking game:

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-04-Georgetown-Prep-Letter-re-Devils-Triangle.pdf

I wish I could link this information from a non-right wing source. Unfortunately, the release of information has been incredibly Balkanized during this process. CNN literally sat on the story about Ford’s ex for a whole day, then wrote a hasty piece immediately after her friend denied that Ford coached her on a polygraph. It seems like The Hill and Politico are the only sources that try to give a complete picture.
I agree with your whole first paragraph.

It's difficult for me to see how people (not you specifically) took a very different stance on credibility of accusations when Catholic priests were accused of incidents taking place decades ago.

My understanding is that most of the Catholic Church accusations were contemporaneous. The children didn’t go to the police, but many of them told their parents and/or the church at the time the abuse happened. In response, the church simply moved the priests to other churches and covered it up.

That’s what took down Judge Kozinski and Judge Samuel Kent. They were alleged to have abused their positions to harass female clerks and employees with impunity. There were eyewitnesses who corroborated the stories, but for awhile they didn’t come forward because of the power imbalance.

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6642
  • +98/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2018, 05:48:13 PM »
I’m not a fan of what his jurisprudence will mean for the Supreme Court either. Aside from what you said, he’s too pro-executive power, too expansive in his reading of the Second Amendment, and will likely tilt the Court in even more of an anti-consumer direction. Their recent decisions expanding the First Amendment to strike down labor union laws are especially troubling. I fear he’ll help push that to another level.

That said, here’s four more Georgetown prep students who say that despite the Urbam Dictionary definition, “Devil’s Triangle” was a name they came up with for a drinking game:

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-04-Georgetown-Prep-Letter-re-Devils-Triangle.pdf

I wish I could link this information from a non-right wing source. Unfortunately, the release of information has been incredibly Balkanized during this process. CNN literally sat on the story about Ford’s ex for a whole day, then wrote a hasty piece immediately after her friend denied that Ford coached her on a polygraph. It seems like The Hill and Politico are the only sources that try to give a complete picture.
I agree with your whole first paragraph.

It's difficult for me to see how people (not you specifically) took a very different stance on credibility of accusations when Catholic priests were accused of incidents taking place decades ago.

My understanding is that most of the Catholic Church accusations were contemporaneous. The children didn’t go to the police, but many of them told their parents and/or the church at the time the abuse happened. In response, the church simply moved the priests to other churches and covered it up.

That’s what took down Judge Kozinski and Judge Samuel Kent. They were alleged to have abused their positions to harass female clerks and employees with impunity. There were eyewitnesses who corroborated the stories, but for awhile they didn’t come forward because of the power imbalance.
That was the case with some of the priests. It wasn't the case for all of them, but it was acted upon as if it were true for some, it was probably true for every accusation. Now perverted priests are a part of pop culture.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2018, 10:09:08 PM »
One more thing on Devil's Triangle. Apparently one of the guys who says it was a drinking game is credited in the yearbook as "Devils Triangle (founder of the name)":

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1047959545694343168

I think that increases the likelihood that they had their own usage of the word that differs from how it's used today.

Two more points. First, I was a bit unfair to CNN earlier. Jake Tapper has tried to keep a cool head and take a fair approach throughout this. Second, Kavanaugh just penned a WSJ article where he admits he lost his cool and "said a few things [he] should not have said." If he is confirmed, that's not good enough. He needs to make a specific apology for the partisan talking points.

And this is a sane perspective from Justice Stevens:

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/retired-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-does-not-belong-high-court/aXEO6XTeiF8OECimtNxpjJ/

... Up until he says he still thinks the First Amendment doesn't protect flag burning as expressive conduct.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 10:22:58 PM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #33 on: October 05, 2018, 12:45:22 AM »
I am really starting to hate the expression “hill to die on.” It’s an extremely cynical way of saying somebody is standing by their principles (good or bad.) Make the other guy die on the hill.

But yes, the GOP should die on this hill. If they don’t support their nominee against these unfounded accusations, every other nominee will wonder if the Republicans will fuck them over too. It will also encourage the Dems to pull more shanigans like this in the future. Rufio has laid out how the Dems could have quietly pursued these accusations weeks ago. Instead they blatantly turned it into a circus. It’s disgraceful.

Rock’s analogy of hiring someone falls apart because of the reason I stated above, and also because the Republicans can only nominate one person at a time. There’s also the injustice of possibly abandoning an innocent man.

The perjury accusations seem unfounded. Good luck proving “Devil’s Triangle” can’t refer to a version of the drinking game Quarters. I’m sure it can also refer to a threesome. I highly doubt some high schoolers in the 80s were having so many threesomes they had casual references to them. Maybe they got the name for the drinking game from the sexual position. I doubt anyone remembers after 35+ years. It’s stupid and pointless.

Did Kavanaugh do it? I’m sure he believes he didn’t, and I’m sure Ford believes he did. Memory is incredibly malleable, especially with alcohol involved. Maybe he did it and is lying. Maybe he did it and honestly doesn’t remember. Maybe he didn’t do it and Ford is lying. Maybe he didn’t do it and Ford is confusing him with someone else. Maybe they’re both wrong: he made a pass at her and doesn’t remember because (in his mind) it wasn’t memorable, and she has inflated it in her mind to be attempted rape. After 37 years, who the fuck knows, which is why we have statutes of limitations.

What I do know is that this process has been incredibly destructive for this country. The assumption of innocence is not just something for courtrooms, it’s one of the foundations of civil society. Attempts to erode that because we need to “believe all women” are shortsighted. There is no corroborating evidence for Ford’s story, which has large holes in it. Vote on Kavanaugh’s legal record and move on.

The law doesnt actully protect your PR speaking. If a principle get accuse of fucking a student...even if he didn't he basicly fucked as a principle.

Nor would most people say hire a babysitter who accuse of being a pedofile. Why hire a guy who might be a rapist...when you have plenty other conservatives you can move onto.

I mean Franken had to leave for a lot lesser shit.  I can totaly see a high school from a preppy school..where you have Ammazing wealth and power having a threesome to.  That why I said I wouldn't go after him..but yea Devil Triange mostly likely a threesome. The thing is not just it pejury...but why pick that to do perjury. He lying about small shit in court.

Republcians got 2 years to hire someone. They can.  And with the Ramireze thing..this shit was floating out there for months. The law doesn't protect you from not getting a Job

OJ simpsons was delcared innocent. But trust me his Jobs prosepect have fallen. Robert Blake not getting to many Jobs.

This is not an ordinary Job. This is a supreme court. A lifetime appointment that will effect issue..including women issue for a generation. And that not to even mention his partisan rant during it. You can't then turn around a bitch about playing politics. The Republicans cant bitch about playing politics after the shit they pulled with Garland. They would do then exact same thing if one of president Hillary picks had the same shit. But The dems might be sane enough to pick someone else

as for fear of Dems keep pulling this shit. They didn't pull this with Trump first pick. That guy got through pretty easly. That because he didn't have rape accusations

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #34 on: October 05, 2018, 01:09:19 AM »
Well I mention some of the perjury in the post above you. Which why I said depends if they want to go after the little stuff

Which why I said the devil triangle thing they may just let slide. Even though think even at the time that meant two guys fucking a girl and not a drinking game. Unless it only involve 3 people drinking. Which if not why would it be called that.

Here the thing with Rameriz..there actully Text message prior to the new York story. Where he reach out to them about Ramerez. Then he said he didn't know about it. Which is clearly a lie then. Since he said new york article was the FIRST time he heard about it. It was to get him to go against her.

You’re wrong about that. Read pages 18-20 of the hearing on Sept 25:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf

On page 18, he said he heard about an incident matching Ramirez’s allegations through the New Yorker story. Then on page 20, he states that during the 6-day period before the New Yorker piece when she was trying to recover her memory, he heard she was calling around.

He seems to have meant that he’d heard she was making some type of sexual allegations that she couldn’t be sure of and calling around to fill in the details, but he heard about the precise details during or around the time the story was published. This is the sort of vague misstatement or contradiction that occurs all the time in depositions. Often times, the witness then realizes he or she misstated things and gives a more precise answer.  The claim that this was perjury is very weak.

While I haven’t heard anyone say “Devils Triangle” is a drinking game, I have heard people from that era say “Triangles” was a drinking game. And someone’s already provided a book about farts that uses the word “boof” to describe one.

I’m sure his memory of the yearbook entries isn’t entirely accurate. He may be dead wrong on some of it. That doesn’t mean he’s lying. False memories are very common. Eyewitnesses regularly have false memories of details surrounding events like school shootings and 9/11. Its highly unlikely that he has an accurate memory of his high school slang.

here why i have trouble buying that

the question was specifically about ramirez. the text message was specfically about that to

the pages most talk about the wedding if he met her. he doesnt really mention he himself was calling around or say he knew about it. it just mention the artice said she was unless thats in another page

how for me to think a judge of his experience would make that sort of misiterpetations

just wonder if kav was the one judging this would he be cool with these mistakes

You would be amazed how often lawyers and judge misremember or misstate subtle facts and have to be corrected. It’s common and isn’t indicative of deception. It’s even more likely to occur when the judge is enraged.

On Sept 25, Kavanaugh said he heard about some type of Ramirez accusations. He just said he didn’t hear about allegations that matched the specific incident alleged. Then on Sept 27, he repeated that he hadn’t heard about her (specific) allegation until the New Yorker story.

The New Yorker story itself says they contacted him about Ramirez’s allegations. He testified that he’d heard she was calling around.

The simple way to reconcile his testimony is that he was distinguishing between knowing Ramirez was going to make *an* allegation and knowing the precise details of the allegation that showed up in print. Or he could’ve simply meant he learned about it when the New Yorker called him rather than the exact date of publication. Both interpretations are simpler than the notion that he was intentionally trying to hide the fact that he knew about the allegation, even after he was quoted in the New Yorker story and even after he testified that he’d heard she was calling about an allegation.

He may’ve been nominated by Trump, but he isn’t Trump. His judicial record doesn’t show a penchant for lying about what he’s already said for no apparent reason.

other two possibility is he simply didn't think they could prove they talked to him, or he was under pressure an lied because he was clearly stress out an agitated..he was pushed against the wall. And when people are..they sometimes say dumb lies. He wouldnt be a first time to say a Dumb lie when being interrogated.

Thing is the Question again was pretty clear. Have you heard of Ramirez allegation before the article. Hard to get confuse by that. Clearly he did hear about it. I dont know why he lied. Why would he lie about little pointless shit like drinking

They didn't ask did you know the allegation were being put in print
They didn't ask When did he know about it BEFORE the article

They ask before the article did he know about he allegation or was aware of it. Its very little wiggle room

Put it this way. If Kavanuagh Was a judge on this case would he let this slide. Don't think he would

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10148
  • +1136/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #35 on: October 05, 2018, 07:52:11 AM »
Another question, related to Kavanaugh’s supposed temperament issues and partisan views. Are there any examples of these being issues in his professional life, outside of when he’s being accused of gang rape in a trial of public opinion spearheaded by one of the two main political parties on national television? He has an entire legal career to see if these are actual problems.


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #36 on: October 05, 2018, 09:35:29 AM »
According to WSJ, Leland Keyser said this:

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.

Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.


Monica McLean says there was no pressure involved and the article says that another friend didn’t believe Keyser felt pressured by McLean’s communications. This is the same McLean who Ford’s ex claims was helped by Ford on a polygraph for employment:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/03/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-polygraph/index.html

McLean says the ex is lying.

Additionally, “in light of recently uncovered evidence,” Chuck Grassley now asks Ford’s lawyer to turn over all documents showing her communications with Ford’s named witnesses, Senators Feinstein and Hirono, and the other accusers (Swetnick and Ramirez):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OOuRBPA2XJEJqCW-UYsgdmvCakzks0yi/view

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/grassley-requests-records-from-coms-between-blasey-ford-other-accusers

It’ll be interesting to see if Grassley is bluffing about the “recently uncovered evidence.”
« Last Edit: October 05, 2018, 09:39:20 AM by Rufio »

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #37 on: October 05, 2018, 10:23:16 AM »
And more Yale students seeking their 15 minutes of fame by claiming that since they saw the guy “stumbling” drunk, he must’ve been lying about not having blacked out:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kavanaugh-drinking-buddies-say-should-not-be-supreme-court

We each asserted that Brett lied to the Senate by stating, under oath, that he never drank to the point of forgetting what he was doing. We said, unequivocally, that each of us, on numerous occasions, had seen Brett stumbling drunk to the point that it would be impossible for him to state with any degree of certainty that he remembered everything that he did when drunk.

Pure pseudoscience. Every time I see a “Kavanaugh is lying about his drinking” article, I keep waiting to hear someone say they remember an incident where he completely forgot what happened the night before and couldn’t remember it (a true black out rather than a brown out). Instead, it’s this pseudoscience over and over again. Some science:

https://thisnakedmind.com/4-things-need-know-know-alcohol-induced-blackouts/

Now, the claim that anyone can remember with certainty what happened 10 years ago, let alone 36 years ago, is unfounded. But that applies both ways. Memory is unreliable to varying degrees. Alcohol influences that. Its effects vary from person to person. Some people are totally blacked out without outward signs of drunkenness. Some people stumble around and slur their words, but still form memories (even if they are hazier in detail than non-drunken memories).

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2018, 11:38:50 AM »
Another question, related to Kavanaugh’s supposed temperament issues and partisan views. Are there any examples of these being issues in his professional life, outside of when he’s being accused of gang rape in a trial of public opinion spearheaded by one of the two main political parties on national television? He has an entire legal career to see if these are actual problems.

well he passed votes been mostly for corparations. so their a bias their. then its he case against the Clintons. with question like did you cum in her mouth. which even his Republicans colleagues said thats to far you fucking weirdo. i am paraphrasing on the weirdo part but not the cum in the mouth part. so it clear he still got his rap beef with them

so dont think he fans if the dems. then his stance on impeachmen and president prosecution has conveniently change

now granted if course these judges have bias that why their picked but your not susposed to be this obvious

then it the incident with the stolen emails

and havrnt been much time to check through his passed cases. for all the delays then be rushed. they gave them thousands of pages with a day to read it and still left out stuff

so the process compared to most of these havent actully been long

hell whole investigation is like a week and rushed as hell

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10148
  • +1136/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2018, 01:00:34 PM »
So what time is the final vote? Tomorrow morning?


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2018, 11:18:56 PM »
Looks like it through

Collins said she going to vote absent..but she no is SPIRIT...and isn't being no on spirit the most important thing

Manchin said he will vote yes. Which fucked up. Since even without the sex shit...a person who claims to be democrat should vote against this guys for multiple policy and ideology reasons. That and not sure they need his vote

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2018, 11:23:46 PM »
murwoski, voting no it seems

therock

  • ********
  • 8766
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2018, 12:11:42 AM »
Only thing.. in what group will this cause a bigger turn out

before it seem even or even leaning toward the republicans...Since they tend to vote on the court more

But may change once this actually confirm. Because think some people thought this one would actully be stopped, or least had false hope it would. Think it going to be some serious anger. Rightly or wrong lot of people going to be pissed. since the differnce is Progress dont normaly come out. The right always come out. So it going to be a different Mid term demographic

And you know Trump going to say something dickish to make them even more pissed

Thanos6

  • *****
  • 1566
  • +19/-17
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2018, 05:21:20 AM »
How about we just disregard any ruling he's part of? Since it should be an Obama guy in there.
Truten forever!

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2018, 01:28:17 PM »
Well I mention some of the perjury in the post above you. Which why I said depends if they want to go after the little stuff

Which why I said the devil triangle thing they may just let slide. Even though think even at the time that meant two guys fucking a girl and not a drinking game. Unless it only involve 3 people drinking. Which if not why would it be called that.

Here the thing with Rameriz..there actully Text message prior to the new York story. Where he reach out to them about Ramerez. Then he said he didn't know about it. Which is clearly a lie then. Since he said new york article was the FIRST time he heard about it. It was to get him to go against her.

You’re wrong about that. Read pages 18-20 of the hearing on Sept 25:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf

On page 18, he said he heard about an incident matching Ramirez’s allegations through the New Yorker story. Then on page 20, he states that during the 6-day period before the New Yorker piece when she was trying to recover her memory, he heard she was calling around.

He seems to have meant that he’d heard she was making some type of sexual allegations that she couldn’t be sure of and calling around to fill in the details, but he heard about the precise details during or around the time the story was published. This is the sort of vague misstatement or contradiction that occurs all the time in depositions. Often times, the witness then realizes he or she misstated things and gives a more precise answer.  The claim that this was perjury is very weak.

While I haven’t heard anyone say “Devils Triangle” is a drinking game, I have heard people from that era say “Triangles” was a drinking game. And someone’s already provided a book about farts that uses the word “boof” to describe one.

I’m sure his memory of the yearbook entries isn’t entirely accurate. He may be dead wrong on some of it. That doesn’t mean he’s lying. False memories are very common. Eyewitnesses regularly have false memories of details surrounding events like school shootings and 9/11. Its highly unlikely that he has an accurate memory of his high school slang.

here why i have trouble buying that

the question was specifically about ramirez. the text message was specfically about that to

the pages most talk about the wedding if he met her. he doesnt really mention he himself was calling around or say he knew about it. it just mention the artice said she was unless thats in another page

how for me to think a judge of his experience would make that sort of misiterpetations

just wonder if kav was the one judging this would he be cool with these mistakes

I’m actually baffled by this post. Again, Kavanaugh testified on Sept 25 that he knew Ramirez was calling around. On Sept 25, he admitted under oath that he knew in advance she was going to make *an* allegation. He said didn’t yet know she was going to make an alllegation that fit the specific incident that was printed.

Then on Sept 27, his testimony was that he learned about the exact allegation from the New Yorker, not from the senators who already knew about the allegation beforehand. The point of that testimony was that the senators didn’t disclose it to him before he learned about it from the media.

The idea that he was then trying to lie about his knowledge that Ramirez was going to make an allegation is illogical. You’d not only have to think he’s claiming he was never interviewed by the New Yorker (something he hasn’t claimed), but you’d also have to ignore his testimony that he knew she was calling around about an allegation she was going to make.

If your claim is that he was lying about this, and this is all the evidence you have, it’s just not going to hold up in court.