The Kavanaugh controversy

[yovargas]

An FBI investigation that, regardless of what it finds, and it almost certainly will find nothing truly significant, will almost certainly leave Democrats and Republicans voting exactly as they would without the investigation.

(God, I hate being so cynical. But how can I not be in this political environment?)

[Cerin]

And no one has condemned him. We asked for an FBI investigation, not a criminal trial.

In this case, 'condemn' would be to reject the nomination based on an unsubstantiated allegation. And that's what a certain contingent seems to be insisting on, on the rationale that not condemning means their own assault experiences don't matter.

Certainly some individuals will feel that way in a nation of millions. You will find someone who can take almost any stance, including those who say even if he did it they don't care. But I am trying to limit my discussion to the government, since they are the ones who actually have any say in this matter in any practical sense. No Democratic senators are asking for a criminal trial.

I'm not talking about a criminal trial. In this case, to condemn means to deny Kavanaugh a place on the court because of the Ford allegation, and Senators are certainly advocating that sort of condemnation.

[elengil]

I'm not talking about a criminal trial. In this case, to condemn means to deny Kavanaugh a place on the court because of the Ford allegation, and Senators are certainly advocating that sort of condemnation.

But condemn is a loaded word to use for that. Yes, he may not get confirmed. That is not a condemnation. Confirmation is not a right. This is an extremely privileged position, an almost exclusive one. And senators certainly have the right not to confirm even where there is no proved criminality. Even his behavior at the hearing can be enough to keep him from the position. That is not a condemnation, a judgement of character, yes.

[Frelga]

Yeah, he's not being denied anything. He's failing a job interview. I imagine most of us have survived the experience without throwing a tantrum.

I must ask again - is this truly the only conservative judge that fits the GOP requirements?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

It is an unusual job interview where you are accused of moral turpitude.

I think most people would react in a negative and emotional manner if accused of what he's accused of.

[Frelga]

It's an unusual job that comes with that much power guaranteed for as long as an employee lives. It calls for dignity and self-possession under stress, don't you think?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

And I would say that trying to interpret people's expressions from a random freeze frame is totally pointless and meaningless.

I agree.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

The thing about Kavanaugh is, even though he is allowed to say he didn't do it, he is supposed to appear all contrite about anything happening to anyone anywhere ever. Then he is supposed to start promising all sorts of concessions and swear lifelong humility and loyalty to Feminism (tm).

He's breaking the script. Even though he didn't say Ford wasn't attacked, he not only said he didn't do it he also stated quite bluntly and directly about how not only did he not do it he is offended by the very suggestion that he did it.

[Primula Baggins]

Which is precisely what he would do if he had committed the assault and knew it. It doesn’t indicate that he’s innocent.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

From the right-leaning Business Insider

The FBI's investigation into Kavanaugh is far more constrained than previously known, and experts say 'it would be comical if it wasn't so important'

[Cerin]

Probably one of the reasons Republicans were so opposed to an investigation in this rabid political context was the potential for it to go on indefinitely. Two of Flake's conditions in his insistence on an investigation were that it not exceed one week and only pertain to the allegations already made. Can the White House/Senate limit who the FBI interviews within those agreed upon limitations?

[River]

My company rejected a job candidate after their background check revealed multiple arrests for assault, though no convictions. It was a customer-facing role there was concern about lost sales and/or lots of embarrassment. We also rejected a job candidate because of their overly nervous demeanor during the interview. It was a project management role and there was concern this person wouldn't be able to have the tough conversations and confrontations such jobs require. And there was another candidate we rejected because if we'd done a drug test right then and there the candidate would not have passed. Also, my boss and his boos have tales of people they turned away over things like poor table manners during lunch and weird/incorrect responses to questions designed to probe how they'd work in a team setting. Just some examples of how, in private sector job interviews, presentation and impressions matter. I can pretty much guarantee that if we managed to draw forth a reaction like Kavanaugh's at that hearing we would not be hiring that person. I can also pretty much guarantee that if we received the sort of derogatory information about a job candidate that the nation has received about Kavanaugh, we would not be hiring that person.

As for the general tone that broad conversations about sexual assault tends to take, it occurred to me while listening to NPR this afternoon that the problem is this: these conversations force people to look at themselves and judge what they see. To think about what they've done and/or not done. What they've expected. What they've accepted. To recognize that maybe they've been wrong about these things and recognize that there may have been some rather hairy consequences. That's not an easy task so lots of people end up retreating back behind their old excuses. And to come back to Senator Flake and the confirmation hearing, I think Flake ended up being the one so blatantly torn because he wants to be a good Republican and support the President's nominee but he's also a really devout Mormon. I doubt he's got much, if any, history of drunken debauchery. So his feathers won't ruffle at the idea that things he did while drunk at the HS and college parties might come back to haunt him because he wasn't at those sorts of parties and he doesn't have to look at Kavanaugh and maybe, just possibly, see echoes of himself in the worst possible light.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Which is precisely what he would do if he had committed the assault and knew it. It doesn’t indicate that he’s innocent.

I'd expect him to deny it either way, true. I wouldn't expect him to admit to it.

The point was that in the current political climate, he was supposed to deny it AND be contrite on behalf of all men towards all men. Instead is refused to do that and instead showed offense that he was accused.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... crats.html

Instead, the F.B.I. was directed by the White House and Senate Republicans to interview just four people: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth, high school friends of Judge Kavanaugh’s; Leland Keyser, a high school friend of one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers, Christine Blasey Ford; and Deborah Ramirez, another of the judge’s accusers.

If that is accurate, that is worse than no investigation at all.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

Why?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In order to conduct a valid investigation, the investigators have to have at least a modicum of discretion to follow where the leads take them. There certainly is a balance between an open-ended investigation and one that is as limited as that statement suggests. What is the point of even interviewing Debra Ramirez if they are banned from talking to anyone else at all related to her allegations of what happened at Yale, or taking any other actions to determine whether there is any validity to her claims? How can they judge the truth of what Mark Judge says if they can't even speak to Safeway to find out when he worked there, to compare it to what Dr. Blasey Ford with regard to the timeline. There is some speculation that an entry on Kavanaugh's calendar might be the party that Dr. Blasey Ford was describing, but if that description of the limits of the investigation is true, they would be banned from questioning any of the people involved in those events. An investigation that limited is very unlikely to get any closer to the truth, and thus is worse than no investigation because it enables people to say "see there was an investigation" even though it was not really a valid investigation.

Of course, I don't know if that statement in the "failing New York Times" is true, and of course this is only my opinion, but you asked and so I am answering.

ETA: I should clarify that those are just a few examples of what the investigators should be able to do, off the top of my head.

[Frelga]

NBC and Fox reported the same thing.

Why?

Simply put, because it enables the White House to say that the investigation has not confirmed Dr. Ford's accusations, so as to soothe any GOP Senators reluctant to confirm Kavanaugh, when in reality the FBI has been prevented from turning up the evidence. Also because it makes perjury off limits, and some of the statements Kavanaugh made are easily shown to be false.

[Primula Baggins]

The thing about Kavanaugh is, even though he is allowed to say he didn't do it, he is supposed to appear all contrite about anything happening to anyone anywhere ever. Then he is supposed to start promising all sorts of concessions and swear lifelong humility and loyalty to Feminism (tm).

C_G, I feel compelled to mention that I (and probably a lot of others) could do without your very clear total lack of concern for the harm done to both women and men (and children of both sexes) by sexual abuse. Certainly it seems a little excessive to sneer at other people's suffering. You probably know people, probably like and love people this has happened to.

[Cerin]

This article has some conflicting reports about the limits of the investigation. The Democrats and the press should probably chill while things proceed, although they will undoubtedly not be satisfied whatever the scope of the investigation turns out to be. The purpose is to investigate the Ford and Ramirez allegations, not broadly look into Kavanaugh's entire history again. It is a background check, not a criminal investigation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... tt-n915061

[RoseMorninStar]

I've followed this case kind of on my periphery, not wanting to experience the painful nitty-gritty specifics too deeply but it's impossible to avoid. I have read through this thread. Many good posts have been made.

All sexual allegations aside, I found Kavanaugh's behavior at the hearing appalling, entitled, and belligerent. I tried to imagine the reaction if the SCOTUS candidate in question had been someone else; a woman, a person of color, or perhaps someone on the other side of the political isle. Would that behavior have been acceptable? (I don't think so, nor should it be.)

As a (normal) person being accused/questioned, I can understand frustration, anger, bewilderment.. but as someone *in a job interview* for a lifetime appointment to one of the highest positions in our country, someone who will be making decisions which will affect all of our lives, it was bizarre. The snarky evasive responses, unanswered questions thrown back at senators. There was a total lack of respect and composure. I would imagine such a position (SCOTUS) requires an extraordinary amount of composure/'grace under fire', dignity, levelheadedness, not to mention confidence in our judicial system and investigations. I'm kinda gobsmacked. Among other issues, it doesn't speak well to his temperament, disposition, or character.

Using the transcript from the hearing Vox made a chart of all questions that were answered or unanswered/evaded by both Ford and Kavanaugh.