• 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 think we have to be fair across the board. On both sides of the aisle, we have a ton of hypocrites. We have a slush fund that has paid millions of dollars to cover up sexual assault claims and almost assuredly, some of the very people that have used that fund to cover up their misdeeds are now admonishing Kavanaugh. Yes, if the evidence shows Kavanaugh did this, and right now the only evidence is the word of Dr. Ford, he should decline the nomination.

Conversely, Booker, who admits he committed sexual assault at just about the same age as did Kavanaugh, should also resign. As should anyone that has benefited from the Congressional fund. Either we have it the same for everyone, or we have it for none.

Do you think Booker should resign and Kavanaugh should decline his nomination?

Then you must think Trump should step down. He's admitted committing serial sexual assaults as an adult and has nearly two dozen women saying he did to them.
 
Then you must think Trump should step down. He's admitted committing serial sexual assaults as an adult and has nearly two dozen women saying he did to them.

Since you ask, or rather imply, I think Trump is a disgusting human who is unfit to be in the role he is in. Do you think Cory Booker should step down since he admits to sexual assault?

Again, I have very clearly answered two questions now. I am not hearing clear answers to any of my questions. That is another trait of those that frequent this board.
 
You’re correct. Once the nominee for the Supreme Court was credibly accused of attempted rape there was no putting that genie back in the bottle.


Unless there’s some evidence that surfaces indicating that Dr. Ford is lying then this nomination should be ended.

Maybe we need a good investigation.
 
how about everyone who commits sexual assault steps down, we let the dust settle, and run special elections
 
Step 1: Denial. Kavanaugh's character (Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress While Under Oath) is superb.

Step 2: If it happened, it wasn't that bad.

It is a remarkable fact of American life that hordes of men are now defending sexual assault.... a substantial group, many of them in politics, has taken to the internet to argue that a 17-year-old football player should get to do as he likes to a 15-year-old girl—say, for example, trap her in a bedroom, violently attempt to remove her clothes, and cover her mouth to muffle her screams—without consequences to his life or reputation.... It’s all in good fun, defenders declare. Horseplay.

Here’s the most surprising part: They’ve launched this peculiar defense despite the fact that the accused party denies it ever happened....

A White House lawyer was quoted saying, “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.” Similar things were voiced by Ari Fleischer and Joe Walsh. Per this dark vision of the future, any consequence for committing assault—even being unable to move from one lifetime appointment to another lifetime appointment—is the beginning of the end of a just society....

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Lance Morrow minimized the victim’s side of things further by declaring that the incident wasn’t serious enough to matter. “The thing happened—if it happened—an awfully long time ago, back in Ronald Reagan’s time. ... No clothes were removed, and no sexual penetration occurred.”

Step 3: It happened, but it wasn't Kavanaugh.

Step 4: Whataboutism
 
Spartacus admitted it.

Kavanaugh has denied it.

Subtle difference there.

I think everyone is acknowledging the difference. What that means depends entirely on what happened between Ford and Kavanaugh, and who has the more credible story.

I’m all for there being consequences for people who commit sexual abuse, and should that mean Booker stepping down, so be it. I do think it’s worth noting that he admitted his actions and their wrongness on his own. Not in response to being caught. I think that should matter somewhat.
 
Well, the important thing is that is sounds like you are keeping an open mind as to Kavanaugh’s denial.

Why should anyone believe Kavanaugh about anything after he lied multiple times during his hearing?
 
Well, the important thing is that is sounds like you are keeping an open mind as to Kavanaugh’s denial.

I never said I wasn’t. I think there’s a lot of evidence disputing that this didn’t just spring up in response to his nomination for SCOTUS. I think this administration has at best a cavalier relationship to sexual assault, so I tend to want to believe her, but I don’t know what happened. I hope that due diligence is being done here amidst the politics of it all, but I’m not optimistic about that.

After Garland, I’m worried the whole process is irreversibly broken at this point.
 
FYI i just checked and there's nothing in the Constitution about sexual assault
 
At least you are honest about your prejudgment. There is something to be said for that, I guess.

Are you suggesting that you aren’t? This is the main area you tend to have the biggest blind spot.
 
The law firm that is representing Ford specializes in whistleblower cases. That means they have giant cajones. Their position at this point should be GOP Senators must ask questions not some hired hand; Ford's witnesses get to testify and she gets Secret Service of FBI protection. If those criteria aren't met, they will show the back-and-forth correspondence with the Committee on a 60 Minutes special about Ford which will be shown next week.

The last thing the GOP wants to see is a 60 Minutes show that illustrates the nature and actions of Grassley and his minions. The country could break in either direction after a fair Senate hearing. It won't be close to 50/50 if it's a 60 Minutes show.
 
At least you are honest about your prejudgment. There is something to be said for that, I guess.

If a witness has been proven to be a liar multiple times in the same case, would you believe him?

I'm not talking about a guy who may have told lies years ago. This is about someone who is intentionally lying in THIS case to get THIS job.

If you don't think that should be the #1 criteria then you are being dishonest.
 
Can Junebug, or wrangor or angus or even lectro explain to me:

1) What is the problem with delaying a week to organize a proper hearing on this issue or a do an investigation?

2) Why not just withdraw Kav's nomination and put forward a different abortion hating, gun loving nominee? Kav can't be the only on paper qualified conservative justice.
 
My thoughts on this subject are probably a little different than most, for good reason. In December of 2003, at the tender age of 28, I was accused of sexually assaulting an intern in our office. She was very specific as to when and what happened. Stated it was something she would never get over. An investigation followed. I was interviewed. She was further interviewed. Other co-workers were interviewed. Luckily for me, on the night she indicated the event happened, I was in another town at a work function. I had multiple witnesses step up and say this. Upon being questioned and this pointed out to her, she changed the date of the occurrence. More investigation, more interviews. Date number 2 ended up being a date in which I was at a friend's birthday party, a party she was not at. Again, she is interviewed, a second time says she must have gotten the date wrong and said a third date. We are now into March, investigation, interviews. Date number 3 ends up being another travel day for work. Not possible I could have done it. With her credibility finally shot, in April she finally admits she made it up in order to get me fired because she wanted my job. Oddly she isn't fired, but within a month leaves.

As of right now, I do not think Kavanaugh should deny his nomination (unless he knows he really did this). However, I don't think the vote should occur until an investigation is held. As long as she says he did it and he says he didn't, both deserve an investigation.
 
Back
Top