• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

I’d really like to hear what junebug et al. Think about the veracity of these accusations now that there are 2 and possibly 3 accusations. Does this change your thoughts on how this affects the nomination? I am especially interested because I defended the notion that one accusation alone in 36 years brings with it some rational questions of its truth, but now two or even three have come to light, how does that change things in a conservative’s mind?

I've only digested information related to the first and second at this point.

The second accusation is beyond words. It stretches the definition of "accusation." I've edited the following from the New Yorker:

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party....

Ramirez said that, when both she and Kavanaugh were freshmen at Yale, she was invited by a friend on the women’s soccer team to a dorm-room party. She recalled that the party took place in a suite at Lawrance Hall, in the part of Yale known as Old Campus, and that a small group of students decided to play a drinking game together. “We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)

A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process.

That's fucking foggy, at absolute best.
 
DemonDKE's all-out defense of Kavanaugh is slightly baffling. Out of character for him.
 
Why don't you deal with the fact that he clearly lied at least twice during his committee hearing?
 
For those of us that have to work with another person's memories on a day-to-day basis, the temporal distance and recall of these events is a nightmare.

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
 
And I'll be clear here, if Judge Kavanaugh came out tomorrow and said, "I was untruthful during the congressional hearings," then that would be a 100% deal breaker for me. The substance of these allegations doesn't bear on fitness of a Judge, but integrity is the cornerstone of the judiciary.

the dims taste for smear is strong, it's turning into their go-to move on court appointees they disagree with, nice job lefties

I disagree with the sentiment this post is attempting to generate. America gains nothing from diving into red vs. blue.

You posting like this makes you no better than Numbers, RJ, or Ph.
 
the dims taste for smear is strong, it's turning into their go-to move on court appointees they disagree with, nice job lefties

it's like people forget Trump already had a justice confirmed rather easily. because, you know, he wasn't accused of being a creep.
 
So the standard for determining if Kavanaugh lied is if Kavanaugh comes out and says he lied.

Grabs, you’re so brave being above all the partisanship.
 
And I'll be clear here, if Judge Kavanaugh came out tomorrow and said, "I was untruthful during the congressional hearings," then that would be a 100% deal breaker for me. The substance of these allegations doesn't bear on fitness of a Judge, but integrity is the cornerstone of the judiciary.



I disagree with the sentiment this post is attempting to generate. America gains nothing from diving into red vs. blue.

You posting like this makes you no better than Numbers, RJ, or Ph.

unfortunately, what I said was true

and just to set the record straight, I am a lot better than the people you mentioned, on any subject, but that's not a great accomplishment
 
DemonDKE's all-out defense of Kavanaugh is slightly baffling. Out of character for him.

I'm not defending him. I think there's enough muck hanging off the nominee to scuttle his nomination. I also believe that some hyper-partisan democrats (here and in DC) are treating a lot of grey area as black and white while accusing hyper-partisan republicans of the same thing.
 
it's like people forget Trump already had a justice confirmed rather easily. because, you know, he wasn't accused of being a creep.

Bork, Thomas, Kavenaugh

just because you only robbed the First, Second and Fifth Banks, nut not the Third and the Fourth, does not make you any less of a bank robber
 
It’s weird.

It’s super fucking weird as long as you step back and realize a withdrawn nomination means admitting defeat in front of those liberal tears you enjoy so much. No matter that it’s crushing you with midterm female voters anything for some more delicious tear fuel.
 
Bork, Thomas, Kavenaugh

just because you only robbed the First, Second and Fifth Banks, nut not the Third and the Fourth, does not make you any less of a bank robber

Stop nominating problematic people.
 
It’s super fucking weird as long as you step back and realize a withdrawn nomination means admitting defeat in front of those liberal tears you enjoy so much. No matter that it’s crushing you with midterm female voters anything for some more delicious tear fuel.

I think Bork just broke them. They can’t think about the process clearly.
 
The idea that Democrats somehow stole a SCOTUS seat from Bork is laughable. Republicans actually stole a seat from an Obama nominee, but that’s irrelevant apparently.
 
Back
Top