Monoxide

The Trump Presidency (take 2)

128,919 posts in this topic

Why isn’t there a woman from the GOP on the judiciary committee?

Also... is it normal for outside counsel to do the questioning at senate judiciary hearings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

This is probably stepping out on a limb, and I'll try to ensure it's not too far out on the limb, but there is something that bugs me about the timing of the Kavanaugh allegations that I'd like to discuss.  I want to say up front -- the timing DOES NOT mean the allegations are not true.  But it seems to me that something that ought to be considered to avoid the whole "she sat on it for 30 years" defense is whether it's best to bring such allegations at more neutral times.

The Roy Moore allegations broke on November 9, almost a month before the elections.  That caused a lot of Republicans to trot out that old saw.  My take was the massive corroboration was strong evidence that he did it.  But even so, he had a full month to refute them, if he could (he couldn't).  Al Franken's allegations came at a time when he was in office, but not prior to an election.  Etc.

These allegations were raised first on a similar timeline, but kept from public view.  Taking at face value the desire to protect the accuser's anonymity (there are problems with that, but let's set them aside), there is still a problem with the fact that hearings were held, questions raised, and then the allegations leaked immediately prior to the vote.  Also leaving aside the question of whether the allegations are true, it would have been better to have raised them long before he was nominated for the seat.  Why?  Two reasons.  First, it lends credibility to the allegations, since there is no question whether the person bringing them is doing it for political gain.  Second, acknowledging the fact that partisans will say that anyway, it "de-fangs the snake" so to speak.  It raises a natural question "why would she lie about it, since he's not up for any office right now?"

Without getting into the questions I tabled -- whether the allegations are true and whether the Democrats acted out of a non-political desire to protect her anonymity -- if these allegations were brought last year, for example, would there be the same questions raised, and assuming there would, would they be as widespread and breaking along such partisan lines?  I imagine a whole lot more Republicans would be neutral at least.  She'd have gotten a fairer hearing.

I have 3 daughters.  I don't want to live in a world where they can be subjected to stuff like this and disbelieved.  I also don't want to live in a world where someone's career can be destroyed by allegations at the pinnacle of their success, if those allegations are not true.  There has to be a balance, and I think one way to achieve that is to encourage women who have been abused to come forward now.  Not only when someone is seeking political office or a judicial seat, but right now.

I think there are a few things working here...

1) Obviously a given nominee (regardless of position) securing a nomination is going to attract scrutiny. That necessarily happens in a short time frame of months, which means any potential fallout can only happen at an inconvenient time. I dont find that part all that surprising....it makes all the sense in the world. 

2) Its also in the bounds of reason to assume something like this: Ford was upset and attributed Kavanaugh's actions to "high school boys will be boys" nonsense which is essentially ingrained into American culture. But the stakes change considerably when the "boys" became nominees for SCOTUS. Perhaps there are vindictive motives or whatever but that doesnt necessarily make any allegation less likely to be true. If anything, it seems like natural motivation to not want someone who wronged you personally to "win" on such a high level. 

3) The timing of the leak is "concerning" but IDK....I guess I dont think about the world as that sort of place. Its absolutely possible there was a leak of convenience....maybe even likely! So it goes. Is it fair? IDK....how true are the allegations? 

4) I dont think its sustainable to demand (my word, not yours) victims of these sorts of allegations to be immediately brought to the forefront for every woman who has experienced them. Not only are many of these situations embarrassing or traumatic, they're also remarkably common place with thousands of shades of gray. It makes all the sense in the world for women who have perhaps worked through these sorts of incidents and pushed them to the back of their mind to want to keep them locked up. But when the stakes change, its also reasonable for them to see virtue in unearthing that pain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, it appears the "Chris Garrett" that Whelen tried to smear is one of the signatories of the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Kavanaugh:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-07-09 155 Georgetown Prep Classmates to McConnell, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein - Kavanaugh Nomination.pdf

If this is correct, Whelen ought to be run out of town on a rail.

o_brother_pardoned-177.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, gazoo said:

I stopped coming here. The support is still there from African Americans and Hispanics. He’s peeled many of them away from the democrat party who have abandoned them or who’s policies harm them.

@HMFIC, please engage immediately.

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carter said:

Why isn’t there a woman from the GOP on the judiciary committee?

Also... is it normal for outside counsel to do the questioning at senate judiciary hearings? 

This conspiracy runs so deep that they forced the GOP to not appoint any women to that committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Except that's not what she said.....at all. 

It's literally the exact opposite of what she said. She very very very clearly stated there was likely little chance of stopping the confirmation because of the senate numbers. 

At no point did she say anything close to "don't worry, I've got this." She DID say an opposition strategy would emerge.....which is a universal truth for every nomination/appointment made by any president for any position. If you can't parse the plain meaning of that, thats on you, not any alleged "conspiracy."

 

Reporter: "How do you plan to stop the Falcons' offense which seemed to be firing on all cylinders against the Panthers last week?"

Sean Payton: "Well, we have come up with what we think is a pretty solid plan and we think we have a good idea of what they want to do against us next week. It will come down to execution."

-----------

Gazoo: "Oh my god, guys. Look, we have 100% proof that somebody from the Saints stole Matt Ryan's iPad and playbook!"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thesouphead said:

Reporter: "How do you plan to stop the Falcons' offense which seemed to be firing on all cylinders against the Panthers last week?"

Sean Payton: "Well, we have come up with what we think is a pretty solid plan and we think we have a good idea of what they want to do against us next week. It will come down to execution."

-----------

Gazoo: "Oh my god, guys. Look, we have 100% proof that somebody from the Saints stole Matt Ryan's iPad and playbook!"

 

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

This is probably stepping out on a limb, and I'll try to ensure it's not too far out on the limb, but there is something that bugs me about the timing of the Kavanaugh allegations that I'd like to discuss.  I want to say up front -- the timing DOES NOT mean the allegations are not true.  But it seems to me that something that ought to be considered to avoid the whole "she sat on it for 30 years" defense is whether it's best to bring such allegations at more neutral times.

The Roy Moore allegations broke on November 9, almost a month before the elections.  That caused a lot of Republicans to trot out that old saw.  My take was the massive corroboration was strong evidence that he did it.  But even so, he had a full month to refute them, if he could (he couldn't).  Al Franken's allegations came at a time when he was in office, but not prior to an election.  Etc.

These allegations were raised first on a similar timeline as Moore's, but kept from public view.  Taking at face value the desire to protect the accuser's anonymity (there are problems with that, but let's set them aside), there is still a problem with the fact that hearings were held, questions raised, and then the allegations leaked immediately prior to the vote.  Also leaving aside the question of whether the allegations are true, it would have been better to have raised them long before he was nominated for the seat.  Why?  Two reasons.  First, it lends credibility to the allegations, since there is no question whether the person bringing them is doing it for political gain.  Second, acknowledging the fact that partisans will say that anyway, it "de-fangs the snake" so to speak.  It raises a natural question "why would she lie about it, since he's not up for any office right now?"

Without getting into the questions I tabled -- whether the allegations are true and whether the Democrats acted out of a non-political desire to protect her anonymity -- if these allegations were brought last year, for example, would there be the same questions raised, and assuming there would, would they be as widespread and breaking along such partisan lines?  I imagine a whole lot more Republicans would be neutral at least.  She'd have gotten a fairer hearing.

I have 3 daughters.  I don't want to live in a world where they can be subjected to stuff like this and disbelieved.  I also don't want to live in a world where someone's career can be destroyed by allegations at the pinnacle of their success, if those allegations are not true.  There has to be a balance, and I think one way to achieve that is to encourage women who have been abused to come forward now.  Not only when someone is seeking political office or a judicial seat, but right now.

Did you ever see "Absolute Power"?   Clint Eastwood is a thief who witnesses a murder while he is burglarizing the murderer's home.  The guy is rich and powerful, and Eastwood covers his tracks, including returning the loot, to avoid detection.

Until he sees the POTUS embracing the the guy he robbed (the murderer).  The hypocrisy is too much and he takes actions that put himself at risk, but expose the murderer. 

See my point?

Edit . . . That's not actually how it plays out at all.  The President is at the guy's house banging his wife.  The secret service commits the murder.  And it is the complete sanctimonious B.S. from the POTUS that triggers the actions by Eastwood.

Still same sort of point though.  It's one thing to have a axholse achieve certain levels of power, but when they are going to be Senators, or Supreme Court Justices, it just becomes too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

FFS, it appears the "Chris Garrett" that Whelen tried to smear is one of the signatories of the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting Kavanaugh:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-07-09 155 Georgetown Prep Classmates to McConnell, Schumer, Grassley, Feinstein - Kavanaugh Nomination.pdf

If this is correct, Whelen ought to be run out of town on a rail.

o_brother_pardoned-177.jpg

Throwing one of your side's character witnesses under the bus through libelous claims is a bold strategy.

mdrake34 and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

There's literally nothing in this video that even approaches a universe of "smoking gun evidence"

If your "smoking gun" is the notion that folks would oppose Kavanaugh's nomination, you're doing it wrong. 

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

Smoking gun = Clinton operative and advisor to Ford stating in July for her democrat audience not to worry, that she had a “strategy” to prevent Kavanaugh from being seated on the bench.

We are not in a court of law, we can all do math. This is a smoking gun. Absolutely no other strategy has been introduced by democrats since July that could have come remotely close to preventing Kavanaugh nomination. 

This was not an organic event that transpired, this was top democrat Diane Feinstein holding onto a letter and dropping it one week before vote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I think there are a few things working here...

1) Obviously a given nominee (regardless of position) securing a nomination is going to attract scrutiny. That necessarily happens in a short time frame of months, which means any potential fallout can only happen at an inconvenient time. I dont find that part all that surprising....it makes all the sense in the world. 

2) Its also in the bounds of reason to assume something like this: Ford was upset and attributed Kavanaugh's actions to "high school boys will be boys" nonsense which is essentially ingrained into American culture. But the stakes change considerably when the "boys" became nominees for SCOTUS. Perhaps there are vindictive motives or whatever but that doesnt necessarily make any allegation less likely to be true. If anything, it seems like natural motivation to not want someone who wronged you personally to "win" on such a high level. 

3) The timing of the leak is "concerning" but IDK....I guess I dont think about the world as that sort of place. Its absolutely possible there was a leak of convenience....maybe even likely! So it goes. Is it fair? IDK....how true are the allegations? 

4) I dont think its sustainable to demand (my word, not yours) victims of these sorts of allegations to be immediately brought to the forefront for every woman who has experienced them. Not only are many of these situations embarrassing or traumatic, they're also remarkably common place with thousands of shades of gray. It makes all the sense in the world for women who have perhaps worked through these sorts of incidents and pushed them to the back of their mind to want to keep them locked up. But when the stakes change, its also reasonable for them to see virtue in unearthing that pain. 

I don't disagree with your first point at all.  The problem is, she didn't need scrutiny to know what happened.  I'm loathe to suggest she should be required to step forward before she's ready to do so.  I wouldn't put that on my kids.  My point is solely a practical one -- doing so would eliminate that issue, as much as it can be eliminated.

Your second point is also correct, but again, from a more pragmatic standpoint, vindictiveness harms credibility.  That's an unfortunate fact, but it's a fact.

Your third point is fair.  And I agree -- the truth of the allegations is paramount.  That will come out hopefully if we can get everyone under oath.

And as to your fourth point, you correctly assume I don't want to demand this of anyone.  I'm suggesting it would make it easier on the accuser, though.  Assuming the allegations are true, how bad does it suck if they are not believed because the timing suggests (to some) it's more about delay and vindictiveness than justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HolyMoses said:

Did you ever see "Absolute Power"?   Clint Eastwood is a thief who witnesses a murder while he is burglarizing the murderer's home.  The guy is rich and powerful, and Eastwood covers his tracks, including returning the loot, to avoid detection.

Until he sees the POTUS embracing the the guy he robbed (the murderer).  The hypocrisy is too much and he takes actions that put himself at risk, but expose the murderer. 

See my point?

Absolutely.  That's why I said I'm not trying to climb farther out on the limb than necessary to make my point.

I get it.  I also get that while this will forever be a cloud on Kavanaugh, win or lose, it will also forever be a cloud on Dr. Ford, and I'm trying to suggest it need not be that way, at least not in as widespread a fashion as it will be.  We as a society have to do better about not attacking the victim in these scenarios.  Part of that, I think, is encouraging the allegations to be brought forward outside the political arena as much as possible.  Because when they're brought like this, heels get dug in that might not otherwise.

That's not fair.  Again, it just is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gazoo said:

Smoking gun = Clinton operative and advisor to Ford stating in July for her democrat audience not to worry, that she had a “strategy” to prevent Kavanaugh from being seated on the bench.

We are not in a court of law, we can all do math. This is a smoking gun. Absolutely no other strategy has been introduced by democrats since July that could have come remotely close to preventing Kavanaugh nomination. 

 

lol

No. See, this is how you right wing folks have found yourself so at odds with objective reality....because you cant help yourselves but fall into traps set by a combination of your own confirmation bias and all of the other cognitive biases built into these thinking machines we're blessed with. So you fill the gaps with "we can all do the math" or "its common sense" because you're either unwilling or incapable of doing the heavy lifting. Thats not how this works. Gap-filling imaginary implication isnt enough to win the day. Not in court and not outside of court. 

She NEVER SAID SHE HAD A STRATEGY. Not once. She said at some point a strategy would emerge. Which is Debate 101. Eventually you find your position's strong points and you tie them together in a cohesive package for which you advocate. Theres not a single quote you can pull from that video which can reasonably be proposed as a "smoking gun" for an anti-Kavanaugh plot involving allegations of sexual assault. 

She said "women" would be a problem for him....because his record makes clear his various positions which are adverse to the interest of women. This entire debate has been about "women" SINCE THE MOMENT HE WAS IN CONSIDERATION. Do you need me to find scores and scores of analyses raising that particular issue dating back to the moment his name was mentioned BEFORE being nominated? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

lol

No. See, this is how you right wing folks have found yourself so at odds with objective reality....because you cant help yourselves but fall into traps set by a combination of your own confirmation bias and all of the other cognitive biases built into these thinking machines we're blessed with. So you fill the gaps with "we can all do the math" or "its common sense" because you're either unwilling or incapable of doing the heavy lifting. Thats not how this works. Gap-filling imaginary implication isnt enough to win the day. Not in court and not outside of court. 

She NEVER SAID SHE HAD A STRATEGY. Not once. She said at some point a strategy would emerge. Which is Debate 101. Eventually you find your position's strong points and you tie them together in a cohesive package for which you advocate. Theres not a single quote you can pull from that video which can reasonably be proposed as a "smoking gun" for an anti-Kavanaugh plot involving allegations of sexual assault. 

She said "women" would be a problem for him....because his record makes clear his various positions which are adverse to the interest of women. This entire debate has been about "women" SINCE THE MOMENT HE WAS IN CONSIDERATION. Do you need me to find scores and scores of analyses raising that particular issue dating back to the moment his name was mentioned BEFORE being nominated? 

 

He will not dare row his boat in the water you are wading in.

HolyMoses likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 100% proof from a Clinton operative that the democrats had a strategy in July they felt  would prevent Kavanaugh from being nominated

Today, that same Clinton operative. Who said this back in July just happens to be an advisor to Christine Ford.

Yep, nothing to see here folks. But Trump Russia Collusion fairy tale baked up by Obama administration is real!!! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I don't disagree with your first point at all.  The problem is, she didn't need scrutiny to know what happened.  I'm loathe to suggest she should be required to step forward before she's ready to do so.  I wouldn't put that on my kids.  My point is solely a practical one -- doing so would eliminate that issue, as much as it can be eliminated.

Your second point is also correct, but again, from a more pragmatic standpoint, vindictiveness harms credibility.  That's an unfortunate fact, but it's a fact.

Your third point is fair.  And I agree -- the truth of the allegations is paramount.  That will come out hopefully if we can get everyone under oath.

And as to your fourth point, you correctly assume I don't want to demand this of anyone.  I'm suggesting it would make it easier on the accuser, though.  Assuming the allegations are true, how bad does it suck if they are not believed because the timing suggests (to some) it's more about delay and vindictiveness than justice?

SHE didnt need scrutiny but the heightened scrutiny makes it far more likely that these sorts of pock marks will come up. Because the stakes change. I dont think vindictiveness saps credibility, TBH. I think its 100% reasonable to expect someone who has been wronged to be vindictive toward the wrong doer. I think the two things can exist on separate scales. And while one can certain affect the other, I dont think it has to be that concrete. If a witness were to say to me "I WAS mad. I AM mad. I dont want to see him win. Because he did XYZ to me and I kept my mouth shut for years but now I can't sit by and watch" I would find it very credible. Not locked in, obviously. But honest and credible. 

The question will always be the truth. Here, the truth is probably unknowable, which is unfortunate. On one hand, maybe thats not fair to Kavanaugh, who is standing on the precipice of the greatest legal accomplishment an American lawyer could hope for. But on the other, if these allegations are remotely true, maybe Kavanaugh should be thankful that he's had such an elite-accomplishment life up to this point? Maybe Ford essentially gifted him with 30 years of silence, during which he had served in roles that no run-of-the-mill American citizen could dream of, let alone accomplish. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gazoo said:

We have 100% proof from a Clinton operative that the democrats had a strategy in July they felt  would prevent Kavanaugh from being nominated

Today, that same Clinton operative. Who said this back in July just happens to be an advisor to Christine Ford.

Yep, nothing to see here folks. But Trump Russia Collusion fairy tale baked up by Obama administration is real!!! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

lol

No. See, this is how you right wing folks have found yourself so at odds with objective reality....because you cant help yourselves but fall into traps set by a combination of your own confirmation bias and all of the other cognitive biases built into these thinking machines we're blessed with. So you fill the gaps with "we can all do the math" or "its common sense" because you're either unwilling or incapable of doing the heavy lifting. Thats not how this works. Gap-filling imaginary implication isnt enough to win the day. Not in court and not outside of court. 

She NEVER SAID SHE HAD A STRATEGY. Not once. She said at some point a strategy would emerge. Which is Debate 101. Eventually you find your position's strong points and you tie them together in a cohesive package for which you advocate. Theres not a single quote you can pull from that video which can reasonably be proposed as a "smoking gun" for an anti-Kavanaugh plot involving allegations of sexual assault. 

She said "women" would be a problem for him....because his record makes clear his various positions which are adverse to the interest of women. This entire debate has been about "women" SINCE THE MOMENT HE WAS IN CONSIDERATION. Do you need me to find scores and scores of analyses raising that particular issue dating back to the moment his name was mentioned BEFORE being nominated? 

 

I’m a former Bill Clinton democrat with many liberal positions. Bill Clinton was a very good president and democrats were moderate back then. They stood for border security, strong military, safety nets for poor, they admired what  America stood for, respected all Americans, fiscal responsibility etc.  

That party has been highjacked and left me and many others behind

My esteemed former democrat party had abondoned me with radical policies and identity politics. 

I despise the establishment Republican Party every bit as much as I do the radicalized democrat party. 

I am an independent and a man with no party 

 

 

regarding your counterpoint, it’s just semantics. She clearly states for them not I worry that there was a strategy in place. She clearly knew something big was going to surface and was telling her audience it was going to happen.

All you guys tap dance around the obvious. You have elite stutter step ability 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gazoo said:

We have 100% proof from a Clinton operative that the democrats had a strategy in July they felt  would prevent Kavanaugh from being nominated

Today, that same Clinton operative. Who said this back in July just happens to be an advisor to Christine Ford.

Yep, nothing to see here folks. But Trump Russia Collusion fairy tale baked up by Obama administration is real!!! 

 

1) Kavanaugh was nominated....

2) Kavanaugh was nominated before the video you posted.....

3) You realize the same "fill in the gaps" principles you're espousing in the Kavanaugh-Ford context would make Trump look like Vlad Lenin if applied consistently, right?

I cant tell if you're in the tank or being intellectually dishonest. I guess I have to conclude the former is more likely than the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gazoo said:

I’m a former Bill Clinton democrat with many liberal positions. My esteemed former democrat party had abondoned me with radical policies and identity politics. 

I despise the establishment Republican Party every bit as much as I do the radicalized democrat party. 

I am an independent and a man with no party 

 

I dont care the slightest bit about your party affiliation or history of candidacy support. 

The things you are saying are factually incorrect on their face. The implications you're suggesting are not supportable by any cogent analysis of the words you've presented. 

This isnt a political problem, its an analysis problem. Your analysis is insufficient. Thats it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now