Response to Kavanaugh

[Phoebe]

This is a truly special gem of a response to the allegations against Kavanaugh, from Politico:

"A lawyer close to the White House said the nomination will not be withdrawn.

“No way, not even a hint of it,” the lawyer said. “If anything, it’s the opposite. If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried. We can all be accused of something.”"

Well, men, are you all worried, far from feeling grotesquely slandered by this anonymous lawyer "close to the White House"? Have you been long in the habit of squirming round atop ladies on the bed and clamping a hand over their mouths so they can't wake the neighbors with their inconvenient screams? Or maybe the clumsy rape attempts took other forms - the important thing is that Every Man can be Accused of Something, particularly by a woman who passed an FBI polygraph. Oh, sweet Justice, in the same way that the name Santorum will live on usefully long after the man himself is forgotten, so too shall we now have the Kavanaugh long-imprinted in the Slang Vocabulary, and the whole time he'll be a Supreme Court Justice. What a fucking world.

UPDATE: here's another gem, this time from Ed Rollins via The Daily Beast:
“If this is the new standard, no one will ever want or be able to serve in government or on the judiciary.”

And Ralph Reed, of course, knows the allegations are false. Straight line to God, that one.

[poorpete]

Can you imagine a world where the qualification for a lifetime appointment in the US government would be no sexual assault?

[bralbovsky]

If his documents as a judge had been released appropriately, perhaps we would not have come to this....

[Phoebe]

When the woman's name was released, one of the FASCINATING things one can do is visit Twitter and look for the most recent mentions, and figure out which hashtags are being used by the crazed partisans of this or that side of the issue. In this case, since the volley came from the Democrats, the inquiry landed on the Republicans who were frantically doxxing her and trying to dig up any possible scrap of information that could call her allegations into question. Suddenly the same polygraph tests that gave semi-decent results - good enough to track down the NY Times editorial writer by administering them to everyone in the White House! - were utterly compromised and suspicious. The FBI in general is clearly a tool of the socialists and Deep State, as opposed to being yet another Law Enforcement Agency that is supposed to be defended against the horrifying affront of a Nike commercial. Police, military, OK. FBI, not OK. Who can keep up?

Anyway, it was fascinating to see the mud diggers at work in real time, tagging each other and all the Trump kids (indeed, just seeing who they tag is revealing), speculating about which tidbit might prove damning, struggling against the mighty weight of their ignorance about almost every possible subject. I know there are smart and devious Republican operatives and attorneys who can handle that stuff when it rises to their level (to wit: the current nominee!) but the Twitter faithful seem to know nothing about how normal institutions operate or how to discern the Real from Bullshit. I learn a lot from watching it.

[El Jefe]

Semi-related side note: We really need to stop using polygraphs as representative of anything other than complete and utter bullshit. We should trust arson investigation techniques long before a polygraph (we shouldn't trust current arson investigation techniques, either).

That doesn't reflect on whether she's credible (she is) or whether it should be investigated (it should) or whether what needs to happen will (it won't).

[mimekiller]

[WillyGilligan]

Victims of sexual assault who come forward should be believed until there is specific reason not to.

People accused of crimes should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Threading the needle in this case is going to prove difficult for many. I don't know if Kavanaugh did what he is alleged to have done, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that Feinstein is playing opposition politics with this woman's story.

[FlameBlade]

On the other hand, Kavanaugh defenses kept shifting.

1) blanket categorical denial

2) rough horseplay

3) Might be someone who looks like me.


But that said, this is a person who has a history of black-out drunking issues, then that has somehow translated onto some serious debt/spending issues. On top with ethics issues arising with handling of materials that might come across as too specific to what Democrats are planning to do in 2000s.

When you look at it, there is a clear character issues with Kavanaugh on the whole. Seems like a number of people are able to demonstrate that there is a considerable number of non-plausible explanations from Kavanaugh, to make it that anything he says is not credible.

Given that Merrick Garland was nominated, but there was absolutely zero hearings in 300-something days, what is the rush with Kavanaugh? Besides, why not cut losses and cut Kavanaugh, replacing him with a different candidate?

[WillyGilligan]

The timing on both sides is all about the midterms. Pubs want it done and dusted so they have an achievement to sell their base on while letting it fade into the news cycle so the Dem base won't be as agitated. Dems pulled this latest accusation at the last possible moment to try to keep it in the news till midterms because that helps them.

And given the shenanigans from the Right with the Benghazi investigation, I can't really fault the Dems on this one too badly.

[FlameBlade]

Honestly, I strongly suspect that Kavanaugh is Trump's only way of surviving Mueller when House falls (and possibly Senate, but that one is a long shot)

[FlameBlade]

You know, there are hundreds other law clerks and justices who could easily step forward.

[Phoebe]

[WillyGilligan]

It's not a court of law, but consider the general possibilities. If it didn't happen, then it obviously doesn't say anything about his character. If *something* happened but her recollection is faulty or misleading, then it's going to take a lot more information to make a judgement. If it did happen, but he hasn't done anything like it in the 3 decades since, how much does it speak to his character now? (Though if it did happen and he has never attempted to make restitution or own up to what he did, that DOES speak loudly about his character.)

The accuser in this case, at least as represented by Dianne Feinstein and her attorney, has been a little odd in the handling of this, enough to bring credibility into question. It looks like she's finally agreed to talk to the Senate, so hopefully we can learn more.

[Mike]

There's not much odd about her behavior at all. Before this started she said she was hesitant to come forward, because she was afraid that it would only end up uprooting and disrupting her own life and wouldn't make a difference in the end. As it turns out, whether she is being truthful or not, that is exactly what is happening. Her family has received death threats and she's been forced to leave her home, and the Senate Judiciary Committe has already made it clear that they are not interested in any process that will determine the veracity of these allegations. They've said they want a "hearing" that involves her testimony and his testimony without any further investigation or even calling of witnesses even though there are witnesses to be called.

Assume she is telling the truth, and picture these expectations in her head (which are turning out to be true) and there is nothing suspicious about her approach and timing to this.

Imagine that the person who tried to rape you was going to get a life appointment to the Supreme Court. Imagine your conscience telling you you HAVE to speak up. Imagine knowing at the same time that speaking up will come at a HUGE cost to you and will probably make no difference. Her actions are completely consistent with her being truthful.

Imagine that she is lying. This still comes at a HUGE cost to her with little chance of it changing anything. So why did she do it? What's in it for her? Why is she doing it?

[Mike]

Side note: introducing the idea of faulty recollection into the national conversation is a massive win for the GOP in this particular case and for abusers in general. We've gotten to a point where everyone knows it looks bad to just flat out call a potential victim a liar (which has been SOP for all of history so far), so now they've introduced faulty recollection, which has been mentioned a billion times by Kavanaugh defenders along with an explanation that includes "as everyone knows..." Acting like it's common knowledge that women under duress or after significant time so often confuse the details of exactly which acquaintance assaulted them. This allows people to say "I believe her... but she's got the facts wrong." Essentially: "Well, I believe that SHE believes it, but I also believe that she's delusional."

See? I've got this cake AND I'm eating it. Best of both worlds.

[FlameBlade]

False recollection thing was pretty much botched. Kavanaugh is going to get quizzed hard, under oath when it comes to Ed Whelan.

If they get Kavanaugh, it seems apparent that they will pay a big price in midterms. They made a number of unforced errors, to include Grassley's staffer getting hit by a sexual harassment suit. And McConnell saying "we're going to plow through it"

It's clear that they don't have votes, with Flake and Collins essentially asking for a hearing.

[Mike]

You say faulty recollection was botched, but it wasn't. Look right here in this thread. WillyGilligan is a smart and reasonable dude, and he's clearly trying to take a middle road here, and the three options he offers are: she's lying, she's telling the truth, or she's got her facts wrong. Faulty recollection is put out on the table as if it is on equal standing with everything else.

This wasn't an assault by a stranger. They were in high school together. She knew who he was by name before the incident. Her friend had a crush on his friend. She knew who he was. She knew who he was before the incident, and she knew who he was while it was happening. The "there was a guy who looked like Kavanaugh" thing has already been debunked. And yet here we are with faulty recollection gaining equal standing on the Wheel of Plausible Realities.

[FlameBlade]

No, what I'm referring to is the coordination of several elements, and the fact that GOP seems to "know" of the plan -- they essentially botched the execution. But yes, there's a possibility of faulty recollection, but they executed the defense so poorily that it will move the needle only slightly.

Meanwhile. Second allegations just dropped, this time, Yale College. Just dropped in New Yorker.

[Mike]

That I agree with. The specific plan here blew up on them. I was talking about the idea of faulty recollection being entered into the lexicon of how we discuss sexual assault. And it's successful enough that people like Willy who want to appear fair-minded feel like it's fair to put that concept on the table for a discussion.

I don't think we've seen the last of this idea. Somehow, for the next couple years, every accusation of sexual assault will be accompanied by a discussion of how common faulty recollection is, especially in traumatic situations, and how unreliable eye-witness testimony is (which is generally true but not applicable to many assault cases). And yet sexual assault will be nearly the ONLY crime that gets this discussion, and somehow it will rarely, if ever, come up in the thousands of criminal convictions that rely primarily on eye-witness testimony and the victim's recollection.

It is going to be new coded language to let you technically sound like you believe and support women, while letting everyone know that bitches be crazy

[Mike]

"And even if it is true, should a person really be judged on mistakes they made 30 years ago when they were in high school?"

This idea of overlooking "youthful indescetions" somehow only applies to well-off white men. The same people who are saying it about Kavanaugh and who said it about college kids who have "such a bright future ahead of them", are the same people who are in favor of trying poor kids who commit felonies (especially poor kids of color who commit felonies) as adults, and sending 16 year olds away for 20 years or more.

And I agree with the idea that we, as a society, need to be more lenient, tolerant and forgiving... I'm just pointing out that most people who are using this plea an Kavanaugh's behalf are hypocrites.

Hell, I'm personally very concerned about a man with $200,000 worth of credit card debt who explains it away as "buying baseball tickets." He's a known gambler, and this is an obvious lie, and one that should immediately disqualify him from the bench. But even if you take his word for it, then a man who racks up 200K of debt on baseball tickets is a man whose judgment is so poor that we really shouldn't put him on the court anyway.