Yeah, Raven’s comment was deep into Poe’s Law for me. I can’t tell if he’s a humorous person with a knowledge of recent US history, or someone in “liberal fascism” territory. Help us out here RavenNight!
Hell, in that whole department of skeletons from his past, I think he could stick with the bullshit he spun or hide behind “I don’t remember.” Even in the face of skepticism on some of those answers, he can fall back on most people believing that these questions point to the stupidity of youth and that it’s inconsequential today. I totally get that.
Exactly this.
Had Clarence Thomas acted like Kavanaugh the Capitol police would have shot him.
Enidigm
3402
Nah, you guys way over think this stuff (imo).
- He’s been accused of sexual assault.
- Part of the context of the accusation is his drinking
- An admission on his part of drinking makes the sexual assault plausible;
- Therefore, there was no drinking
And the reason you’re overthinking it is you’re thinking in terms of morality, or appearances, and they’re thinking in terms of liability. All this 4D chess sounds great, but all they give a shit about is not getting arrested, and they’ll say anything to defend themselves not getting arrested. Hell the entire Kavanaugh nomination is probably about, at the heart of the nomination, not getting arrested by Trump and the Republican hierarchy (if their connections with Russia are to be believed).
Kavanaugh kicked off his entire Republican agent career by trying to entrap Hillary and Bill Clinton on legal technicalities. He’s going to kick and scream like a caged animal if he’s about to get hung for the exact same thing. That’s why he thinks it’s “revenge” on behalf of the Clintons, since he did it to them.
(Edit: stupid quote linking carries over between threads. Sorry @craigm, didn’t mean to link to you.)
I keep telling myself don’t be encouraged by the same old posturing, then I see stuff like this:
And I start to feel encouraged by the posturing. Sigh.
So, I can see the point you’re trying to make, but I think you’re vastly overstating the simplicity of trumping up charges against a person in a case like this.
- You need to have a credible accuser (e.g., a person such as Dr. Ford).
- You need to have a story that will withstand an FBI investigation.
- You need to have an accuser that is willing to testify under oath in front of the nation; thereby potentially opening him or herself to criminal charges and having their life and future career opportunities destroyed. In general, the more credible the accuser, the more they stand to lose if they are found out.
- You need to have witnesses that can validate that the story is in fact a credible one and willing to testify under oath.
- And all of this, you need to find within the circle of acquaintances of the person in question.
That is not something that “just happens” to anyone. It shouldn’t be hard to find candidates against whom such charges would be impossible to make - and if it is hard, well… that’s probably an indication that one needs to look for candidates of better character.
Clay
3405
They both could come out, maybe with Flake, and simply say, “This isn’t the guy. We’ll support a conservative nominee who has the temperament to handle himself, doesn’t display prejudice, and who isn’t mired in controversy.” Neither would suffer in the polls for a reasonable stand like that. McConnell might blow a gasket and shed his human skin to reveal the cephalopod underneath, but I think they actually would be praised and might see their own polling increase if they took a reasonable stand.
Yes, this is the most frustrating part. Murkowski and Collins have nothing at all to fear from letting McConnell know they won’t confirm. Same with Flake and Corker. Yet they don’t. Instead, they go through this silly pantomime. I hope they’re doing it so they can have an excuse for rejecting him, but I fear they’re doing it so they can claim they gave his accusers a fair shake and then confirm him anyway.
Umm, isn’t Corker already a declared yes vote for confirmation?
They wholeheartedly agree with his jurisprudence. They probably have some fear that they won’t be able to get another conservative nominated, but I fail to see why. McConnell will not blink if that means confirming during the lame duck in the unlikely event they lose their majority.
'***
Really good articulation from Benjamin Wittes of why even those who might otherwise support Kavanaugh should do so no longer (i.e., longer @Timex )
Kavanaugh, needless to say, did not take my advice. He stayed in, and he delivered on Thursday, by way of defense, a howl of rage. He went on the attack, not against Ford—for that we can be grateful—but against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and beyond. His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.
Yes. And?
He just ended the pantomime earlier, after Ford testified.
I took the mention of Corker there as an implication that he was making the same noises as Flake, Collins and Murkowski re: waiting for the FBI investigation results, is all.
Ah, my bad. You’re right, of course.
CraigM
3414
People got to pull their head out of their asses and do the work to know who and what you are voting for. Not just accept talking heads.
The most interesting part of Fear is Woodward treatment of folks partially in Trump’s orbit but who also oppose many of Trump’s actions. This list includes Mattis, and former White House employees Tillerson, staff secretary Rob Porter, economic advisor Gary Cohen, Gen. McMaster. Woodward devotes many pages to explaining the complicated relationship between Lindsay Graham and Trump. At one point after Charlottesville, Trump complains to Lindsay, “You are like a part time Trumper sometimes you are with me other times you are not. How do I get you to be on the team full time.?” Lindsey says (I just loaned the book out) words to the effect of well, “I wouldn’t be of any use to you, if I didn’t give you my honest opinion”. Trump disagree and say how he values loyalty. Lindsay says, “As much as I enjoy playing golf with you, I can’t and won’t do that.”
My theory, which is pretty much what Lindsay has said in interviews, is he is treating Trump, much like foreign leaders do. They praise him to the high heaven when they agree with him, and they are mild in their disagreements. It is a form of manipulation, and it may even work.
When and if the New Conservative party starts its purge of Trumpist and there cowardly collaborators, which at this point is almost all elected Republican leaders, I certainly expect Lindsay Graham to be tried.
I personally will defend the guy, but I won’t be surprised nor even particular disappointed, when his head is shaved, his scalp is spray- painted orange and large T is tattooed on his forehead.
Nesrie
3416
Her argument though is not convincing. She’s basically saying don’t vote for this judge because his voting record is politically against what i believe. That’s not really a reason not to vote in a supreme court judge. That’s a reason to vote for a group to get into the White House who will actually try and vote for judges that rule based on the law. The reason not to for Kavanaugh, whether or not you can prove his sexual misconducts which, face it, most of MeToo is well past limitations and that’s part of the point, is because he could not handle himself professionally for just a number of hours. The man does not have enough discipline or self-control to take that seat. How could you ever trust someone like that to rule based on law and strictly law? He couldn’t even answer a couple of hard questions without acting like some sort of pissed off teen.
Matt_W
3417
I don’t know. It seem to me like that’s totally a reason not to vote for a Supreme Court judge. If Manchin thinks Kavanaugh is going to make decisions in a way that will negatively affect his constituents, he should vote against him. His constituents are letting him know that they think he will. Senators get elected too and are part of the confirmation process for a reason.
Nesrie
3418
True… so she can absolutely share her mind and her opinion, and I am not really saying she can’t. But she did what Kavanaugh didn’t, when he came at her on the phone with snide remarks like asking if she cared about the rule of law, telling her to show some respect… she didn’t really react that. He shouldn’t have said that in the first place, but her interaction was more professional than what we saw from Kavanaugh.
I just can’t wait until we have a Supreme Court member tweeting snide remarks, sexist and racist jokes, sticking it to the libs on Twitter just like his buddy Trump. Ugh.
