The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 A Senator gets a job review every 6 years. If the people of Massachusetts didn't want him there, they could just vote for someone else. 

When do we get to review Kavanagh's job? 

Wrong thread post.

Editorial from The Weekly Standard on Kavanaugh Vote by Senate Judiciary Committee

==============================================

https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/brett-kavanaugh-deserves-confirmation-to-the-supreme-court

Headline:  Christine Blasey Ford delivered sincere testimony and deserves respect and empathy. But the burden of proof was not met.

Christine Blasey Ford delivered gut-wrenching and sincere testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. She deserves respect and empathy from her fellow citizens. Sexual assault is a serious crime, and anyone who has committed that crime, even as a minor, should not have a seat on the Supreme Court.

The core of the controversy for those who must now vote is this: To kill a Supreme Court nomination some burden of proof must be met—in this case, and in the others like it sure to come in the future.

 This is not a criminal trial. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not necessary. But some standard of proof is. And in this case, there is no clear and convincing evidence against Kavanaugh. There is not a mere preponderance of evidence. There is not even, as South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham noted, the probable cause to get a search warrant against Kavanaugh [emphasis added].

We have the testimony of Ford, and compelling though it was, we do not have any corroboration of what she says happened more than three decades ago. Under penalty of perjury, all the other people named by Ford as having been at the party where she alleges she was assaulted deny any recollection of the party. Ford’s lifelong female friend Leland Keyser, who says she believes Ford, nonetheless says she has no memory of the event or of Kavanaugh at the time. Two of Kavanaugh’s male high school friends, one of whom is alleged by Ford to be an accomplice in the alleged crime, also deny any recollection of such a party.

Kavanaugh, for his part, could not possibly produce dispositive proof that he had no part in the encounter described by Ford—her allegation includes neither a date nor an address, making it nearly impossible for Kavanaugh to produce an alibi. What Kavanaugh did provide was his own sincere and gut-wrenching testimony.

If the standard those voting against Kavanaugh are embracing is that he must disprove a nearly unfalsifiable 36-year-old allegation, his opponents should say so honestly. Some of them came close.

 Take Senator Richard Blumenthal, from Connecticut. More than a week before the hearing Thursday, our John McCormack asked Blumenthal how an innocent person might prove his or her innocence in such a he-said-she-said scenario. Blumenthal struggled to answer: 

TWS: If a single accusation came against a member of the Senate—yourself—how would you prove your innocence in a case like this?  

 Blumenthal: You know, this nominee is for the highest court in the land. And a lifetime appointment. There's no margin of error here.  

 TWS: So there's no way to prove your innocence here?  

 Blumenthal: We need to do the full fact-finding, and I’m not speculating on what the standard should be. But we need to know the facts.  

 TWS: So you don’t know how an innocent person could prove his innocence in this situation? I mean, if it was yourself and a 35-year-old accusation from one person, how would you prove your innocence here?  

 Blumenthal: The investigation has to talk to the witnesses who were there at the time, has to include all records and other evidence. That's the way cases are done. That's the way cases are proven.

It’s revealing that the Democratic senator couldn’t answer a straightforward question: How would an innocent person prove his innocence?

There’s a reason Blumenthal, like so many Democrats, couldn’t articulate a standard for judging Kavanaugh. He’d reached his decision without one. Before he made noises about fact-finding and investigations and evidence and proving a case, before answering—or dodging—the questions put to him, Blumenthal made a proclamation: “I believe the survivor.”

Brett Kavanaugh is being presumed guilty by Senate Democrats, and by most of the reporters covering the story, without a scintilla of evidence to corroborate the claims made against him. And Ford’s was the most credible of the wild charges Kavanaugh’s opponents leveled. In the last week, Democrats have lobbed one unsubstantiated claim after another at the nominee. And many of the same media outlets that have proclaimed a renewed fidelity to facts and truth in the Trump era have repeated these claims—and amplified them—without even pretending to establish their veracity.

“I ask you to apply the standard you would like to apply to your father, your brother, your son,” Kavanaugh said before the committee. Is guilty-until-proven-innocent a standard we want in this country?

It’s hard to see a positive outcome from this ugly episode. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, those convinced of his guilt will view his elevation as a profound injustice and many of them will believe, quite sincerely, that the Supreme Court is somehow less legitimate with him on it. If Kavanaugh is voted down, his supporters will be angry that wholly uncorroborated claims from decades back could keep a highly accomplished jurist from serving on the nation’s highest court. And if Kavanaugh were to withdraw, recognizing that either of those first two scenarios would likely cause lasting damage to the court and to the country, he would be rewarding the disgraceful behavior of the Democrats who brought us to this moment.

The Judiciary Committee will vote Friday on whether to recommend Kavanaugh to the full Senate. Kavanaugh will not get the support of Democrats who opposed his nomination on ideological grounds and distorted the confirmation process in a disgraceful attempt to block him. Nor will he get much support from an American news media that duly reported every vicious rumor circulated about him. But he deserves confirmation.

A few thoughts:

• There is no "burden of proof" required. It's not a trial. 
• There has been more than one accusation. 
• Even if you don't believe Ford, Kavanaugh has lied throughout the hearing on a multitude of topics. That used to be the kind of thing that would disqualify a SCOTUS nominee, but the right has embraced Trump's pathology as their own.
• ETA: They removed the questioner halfway through because things weren't going their way. That's a pretty unique approach to finding the truth.

RealityForAll said:
Editorial from The Weekly Standard on Kavanaugh Vote by Senate Judiciary Committee
==============================================
https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/brett-kavanaugh-deserves-confirmation-to-the-supreme-court
Two of Kavanaugh’s male high school friends, one of whom is alleged by Ford to be an accomplice in the alleged crime, also deny any recollection of such a party.

I have heard it said that if you can remember the 60's, you weren't there.  Sounds like the same might be said of Mark Judge and his years at Georgetown Prep.

And we have the spectacle of Kavanaugh explaining that Devil's triangle is a drinking game.  Right.

tjohn said:

And we have the spectacle of Kavanaugh explaining that Devil's triangle is a drinking game.  Right.

The best part is that someone from the House of Reps offices changed the Wikipedia entry during the hearing, not knowing that edits are publicly viewable. The degree to which the right is FOS is beyond astonishing at this point.

dave23 said:

tjohn said:

And we have the spectacle of Kavanaugh explaining that Devil's triangle is a drinking game.  Right.

The best part is that someone from the House of Reps offices changed the Wikipedia entry during the hearing, not knowing that edits are publicly viewable. The degree to which the right is FOS is beyond astonishing at this point.

I have to say that the confirmation of men to high office exposes me to new terms.  I was unfamiliar with Devil's Triangle, booffing and FFFFF as in FFFFFFourth of July.

tjohn said:
I have to say that the confirmation of men to high office exposes me to new terms.  I was unfamiliar with Devil's Triangle, booffing and FFFFF as in FFFFFFourth of July.

The MAGAing by conservatives just doesn't stop.

this is probably the best way to bring some civility to the senate doings.

As I have said, I have listened to the proceedings closely and heard Flake said the FBI investigation would be limited to the women who have already made statements.

Since the Times refused to publish the first woman’s allegation, and the second one said she witnessed 10 gang rapes, apparently never reporting any, I don’t know what the FBI will make of their allegations. But we shall see.

MOL ladies only question: — Dr Ford mentioned in her testimony describing the attempt to take her clothes off that she was wearing a one piece swim suit underneath from  earlier on the day in question.   

I still would like to know how she got home, some 6-8 miles from the possible location area — presumably she would not have hitched a ride in the state she was in.

mtierney said:
this is probably the best way to bring some civility to the senate doings.
As I have said, I have listened to the proceedings closely and heard Flake said the FBI investigation would be limited to the women who have already made statements.
Since the Times refused to publish the first woman’s allegation, and the second one said she witnessed 10 gang rapes, apparently never reporting any, I don’t know what the FBI will make of their allegations. But we shall see.


MOL ladies only question: — Dr Ford mentioned in her testimony describing the attempt to take her clothes off that she was wearing a one piece swim suit underneath from  earlier on the day in question.   


I still would like to know how she got home, some 6-8 miles from the possible location area — presumably she would not have hitched a ride in the state she was in.

 What's the question?

mtierney said:

I still would like to know how she got home, some 6-8 miles from the possible location area — presumably she would not have hitched a ride in the state she was in.

 this is what you're focused on?  In 1982 they had phones and phone booths.  People used to call other people to pick them up.

ml1 said:

mtierney said:

I still would like to know how she got home, some 6-8 miles from the possible location area — presumably she would not have hitched a ride in the state she was in.

 this is what you're focused on?  In 1982 they had phones and phone booths.  People used to call other people to pick them up.

 But wouldn’t you remember calling someone to come pick you up?  Wouldn’t you have explained to that person what had happened?  Were there no adults to whom she have confided in?

mtierney said:

ml1 said:

mtierney said:

I still would like to know how she got home, some 6-8 miles from the possible location area — presumably she would not have hitched a ride in the state she was in.

 this is what you're focused on?  In 1982 they had phones and phone booths.  People used to call other people to pick them up.

 But wouldn’t you remember calling someone to come pick you up?  Wouldn’t you have explained to that person what had happened?  Were there no adults to whom she have confided in?

So your contribution to this discussion is to create doubt about her statement because she never told her parents about being sexually harassed and she doesn't remember how she got home after it? Maybe you should read up a bit about this stuff first. Just a friendly suggestion. 

mtierney said:

 But wouldn’t you remember calling someone to come pick you up?  Wouldn’t you have explained to that person what had happened?  Were there no adults to whom she have confided in?

 When I was 16 — fall of 1980 — I was speeding while driving friends home from school and lost control on a blind curve, causing a head-on crash. Miraculously, no one was injured, but it was traumatic. 

Some details are as vivid as flashbacks. Others, like exactly who was in the car with me, are hazy.

I remember my dad met me at the scene, so I assume he drove me home. Otherwise, I have no memory of how I got back.

mtierney asks:  "But wouldn’t you remember calling someone to come pick you up?  Wouldn’t you have explained to that person what had happened?  Were there no adults to whom she have confided in?"

Speaking as a former 15-year-old girl (though a couple of decades earlier):

1.  Maybe, but not necessarily.  If there were a number of these parties, as seems to have been the case, she could easily forget who took her home from any particular party.  Esp. given her stress/upset than night.

2.  Very probably not, depending on who it was.  She was not old enough to have a license yet, so it would have had to be an adult or older kid taking her home, right?  I wouldn't expect her to explain to either of those.  Personally, I don't think I would have mentioned the incident to anyone but a close female friend, and maybe not even that.

3. Absolutely would not have confided in any adult.  At a guess, her parents did not know the nature of the party/parties she was attending - underage and excessive drinking, older guys, no adults there??  Myself, I would not have mentioned ANY of this to ANY adult unless it came all the way down to being pregnant.  No way.

cheers

m

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 THAT was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.  This was intentional, almost manslaughter!

mjc said:

At a guess, her parents did not know the nature of the party/parties she was attending - underage and excessive drinking, older guys, no adults there?? 

 No need to guess. Blasey Ford testified to this:

"For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys. I tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened."

peaceinourtime said:

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 THAT was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.  This was intentional, almost manslaughter!

Ted was a married man and father.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

Morganna said:

mtierney said:
this is probably the best way to bring some civility to the senate doings.
As I have said, I have listened to the proceedings closely and heard Flake said the FBI investigation would be limited to the women who have already made statements.
Since the Times refused to publish the first woman’s allegation, and the second one said she witnessed 10 gang rapes, apparently never reporting any, I don’t know what the FBI will make of their allegations. But we shall see.


MOL ladies only question: — Dr Ford mentioned in her testimony describing the attempt to take her clothes off that she was wearing a one piece swim suit underneath from  earlier on the day in question.   


I still would like to know how she got home, some 6-8 miles from the possible location area — presumably she would not have hitched a ride in the state she was in.

 What's the question?

 What is the MOL ladies only question?

Thanks for the quote, DaveSchmidt.

This is where I confess I just couldn't watch this ****show.

FWIW, back in '80s when I was single and in my 20s, I woke up one night to find a man I had not invited in my bed, trying to rape me. He punched me in the face, hitting an eye. I screamed, bit the wrist of the hand he was using to smother me, and tried my hardest to shove him off. I screamed for my upstairs neighbours, chased him out to the front gate crying my eyes out and called the police. 

To this day, I can't stand the smell of Imperial Leather soap. I can't recall the names of my neighbours, how many police officers attended, the name of the probable suspect, nor what I did the next few days. No-one was ever charged for this offence. I don't recall the name of the counsellor I saw for therapy when I couldn't stop crying for months. 

Does this mean it never happened??

Yet if I were to hear his voice, or see his face, I'd throw up.

peaceinourtime said:

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 THAT was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.  This was intentional, almost manslaughter!

That's true, but if I had been the driver, I would have served time for negligent manslaughter or whatever it is when you are doing something stupid or illegal and end up killing somebody.

Worth a lot, joanne.

joanne, obviously can't "like," but thanks for posting that, and peace to you.

joanne,

I salute your bravery.

mtierney,

Has she answered your question?

So sorry, Joanne, that you had such a terrifying experience in your own home! But you had the presence of mind — and the amazing courage — to call out for help and even chase the creep out of the house! The police report and your physical bruises substantiated what had occurred. 

LOST said:

mtierney,
Has she answered your question?

 If I interpreted it correctly, the gender-restricted question was whether women would keep a swimsuit on under their clothes after a morning of swim practice.

mtierney said:
So sorry, Joanne, that you had such a terrifying experience in your own home! But you had the presence of mind — and the amazing courage — to call out for help and even chase the creep out of the house! The police report and your physical bruises substantiated what had occurred. 

The truth of the experience would be no less had Joanne elected to not report it while the evidence was fresh as so many women do.

tjohn said:

peaceinourtime said:

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 THAT was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.  This was intentional, almost manslaughter!

That's true, but if I had been the driver, I would have served time for negligent manslaughter or whatever it is when you are doing something stupid or illegal and 

tjohn said:

peaceinourtime said:

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 THAT was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.  This was intentional, almost manslaughter!

That's true, but if I had been the driver, I would have served time for negligent manslaughter or whatever it is when you are doing something stupid or illegal and end up 

tjohn said:

peaceinourtime said:

mtierney said:
MaryJo and Cape Cod ring any bells? Senator Kennedy got away with murder and had a lifetime job for 50 years. I have to insert here that I was a JFK-Camelot Dem back in the day.

 THAT was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT.  This was intentional, almost manslaughter!

That's true, but if I had been the driver, I would have served time for negligent manslaughter or whatever it is when you are doing something stupid or illegal and end up killing somebody.

 You are talking about an error in sentencing.  Other than that, these two events differ, at least apparently and vastly., in motive 

One thing has nothing to do with the other.