Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

There is a small part of me that wishes that the vote had come down to a 50-50, and then Pence then voted "No."

NOT because of any great qualms I have with Kavanaugh as a jurist (had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected, but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far). But because it would have split the GOP in half and wrecked its current form. I am increasingly of a mind that that must be (in some form) a needful step to moving towards a better conservative party for the USA.

Wild story.

had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected,

I have some problems with this.

1. If anything short of Kavanaugh personally declaring "Yes, I was an '80s prep villain all my life, and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling liberals!" could have sunk his nomination, it would have been because Manchin or Flake would have changed their vote (i.e. it would have been 49-50). And not really Collins, with her speech she indicated her position was fixed from the beginning.
2. As long as we're referring to legal standards, the integrity of the nominee is what must be demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt", not the opposite. If every single accuser and corroborating witness against him were Soros-paid liars, Kavanaugh still would not have been fit. Somehow the Republicans convinced a swathe of the country that lifetime positions of power should be held to lower scrutiny than a security guard or McDonalds shift manager.
3. Kavanaugh's own statements and behavior, as well as the platoon of character witnesses and affiants, are all consistent with a characterization of Kavanaugh as an aggressive sex pest.


EDIT:

but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far

By the way, you claim to be libertarian-leaning. Kavanaugh's record favors a very weak 4th and 5th Amendments, among other things.

[Montmorency]

Apropos, another nail in the coffin of the theory of judicial "impartiality": justices pay considerable attention to popular moods and concern themselves with managing the public perception of the court's legitimacy.

Example courtesy of Obama's picks.

Remember "a switch in time saved nine?"

[Gilrandir]

Being far from well-versed in this Kavanugh to-do I can't but say I'm shocked to see people (not here but at rallies in Wasnigton) denouncing him ONLY NOW for what he (allegedly) did 30 odd years ago. Like it hasn't botherd them to a slightest degree for thirty years and when he got a big appointment it suddenly became a problem. Where's your integrity, folks?

[rory_20_uk]

Being far from well-versed in this Kavanugh to-do I can't but say I'm shocked to see people (not here but at rallies in Wasnigton) denouncing him ONLY NOW for what he (allegedly) did 30 odd years ago. Like it hasn't botherd them to a slightest degree for thirty years and when he got a big appointment it suddenly became a problem. Where's your integrity, folks?

I imagine in many cases they didn't know about it. How would they? I don't think he was on a register was he?

In cases where the woman is truly a victim odds are they'll not get justice since getting evidence is nigh on impossible and they'll in many cases suffer as much as the other party: the next person they meet and want to have a relationship with would certainly take this into account, as would their employer and so on and so forth. So with the gains so low and downsides so high, best to not bother. When the ration shifts - there is probably more reason to speak out. Leaving aside the whole sexual assault charge, he seems to have willfully lied about many things in the Senate hearing and that should be enough to get him disqualified: if one is a Doctor and fails to report a traffic offence that can be enough to get one struck off and I'd like to think that the standards are even higher for the Supreme Court. But of course they're not.

Is there a shortage of white, conservative judges? Surely not! So bin this lying sot and choose the next misogynist racist and give him a black robe to go along with his white one.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rory summarizes this nicely as to the victims in such situations. Some repress memories from a horrific experience and remember them much later. Others choose to set it aside and move forward rather than carrying a "label" on them thereafter. This was particularly true for those raised in the 20th century rather than the 21st as the era was far less open and effective in discussing all forms of sexual harassment.

I should note that Kavanagh has not been accused of any racist orientation. The accusations were regarding sexual harassment and attempted rape, mostly connected with drunkenness. Kavanagh vehemently denies same. No clear corroboration was brought forward during the somewhat abbreviated investigation.

Many assume Justice Kavanagh is lying and was a sot. Many others assume that this was a last minute smear campaign to derail the nomination and make Trump look bade.

It is possible that both viewpoints are correct.

[Gilrandir]

So with the gains so low and downsides so high, best to not bother. When the ration shifts - there is probably more reason to speak out.

This is what I meant: the key words are "gains", "reason" and "ration", not "offense", "feelings", "hurt". And that is why I don't think much of charges voiced thirty years after the alleged crime.

[rory_20_uk]

This is what I meant: the key words are "gains", "reason" and "ration", not "offense", "feelings", "hurt". And that is why I don't think much of charges voiced thirty years after the alleged crime.

And clearly not high enough to criminally convict. Possibly not at the civil level. Might be enough to sack. And easily enough to not promote to a job for life.

[Montmorency]

No clear corroboration was brought forward during the somewhat abbreviated investigation.

The Republicans were absolutely devious. Trump had the authority to manage the FBI investigation, which he at first played up to create cover - but instead of suppressing it himself he merely assigned direct control of it to the Senate Republicans themselves. It's a stroke of evil genius for its misdirection. So the investigation could not corroborate anything, because they were directed not to investigate or interview potential corroborating leads! Numerous individuals came forward to report corroborating accounts to the FBI, potentially dozens asking to be interviewed, and all were stonewalled. This is also a chilling signal of the admin's capacity to effect political control over national law enforcement...

Remember all the takes from Christmastime about how America's "institutional guardrails" had held up fairly well so far? LOL

Now, the accusations themselves were fairly corroborated given what has been reported to the public, unless you use "corroboration" as a term of art meaning a level of evidence that would convince Buzz Aldrin that the moon landings were a hoax.

Many assume Justice Kavanagh is lying and was a sot. Many others assume that this was a last minute smear campaign to derail the nomination and make Trump look bade.

It is possible that both viewpoints are correct.

It is objectively true that Kavanaugh told lies under oath. Now, if one wanted to value them as permissible "little white lies", that would be a moral and political contention that could only be resolved through the wielding of power. But a lie is a lie.

"Smear campaign" implies false allegations cooked up ahead of time. In fact, communications were uncovered indicating Kavanaugh and co were trying to get their stories straight about anticipated allegations as early as July. Something he misled the committee about, I remind you, when he said he became aware of the substance at the same time as the public did. The simplest explanation is exactly that Ford was hesitant to go forward with the charge, Feinstein honored her wishes, someone with access to the material became impatient and leaked it, and - as is usually the case with sexual crimes - once one cat was out of the bag the rest began pouring forth. The fact that Democrats made at least some effort to seize the developing narrative is not only rational, it's fully appropriate from an institutional point of view.

Though Trump appeared to acknowledge the allegations at first, more recently he has been pushing the conspiracy narrative and decrying them as wholly fabricated, personally attacking Ford over and over, in his rallies, to the media, on Twitter:

You don't hand matches to an arsonist and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob, and that's what they've become. Democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern. Republicans believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob.

That's right, the (illegitimate) president of the (illegitimate) ruling party just declared his opposition illegitimate enemies of the state. CAN WE ADMIT THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL CONFLICT AND RESPOND IN TURN SOON

This is what I meant: the key words are "gains", "reason" and "ration", not "offense", "feelings", "hurt". And that is why I don't think much of charges voiced thirty years after the alleged crime.

Gilrandir, you are applying a nonsensical standard. You're a smart guy. Try to think of why a person in a position of weakness and vulnerability might not want to stake their "lives, fortune, and sacred honor" on the tiny chance of retribution or justice. Have you ever encountered any misconduct or malfeasance in government or your profession? Did you report this immediately to authorities? Did you pursue the issue relentlessly if it was not speedily resolved to your satisfaction? If not, would your integrity somehow come into question?

If things were so straightforward corruption would not preoccupy political economy, as it would be outed at every instance. Now apply that to sexual assault, and you realize your question serves as its own answer.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty, is it worth your life to shoot the fellow now, or should we allow the electoral and/or removal process to proceed? I am happy with the latter two choices.

Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause. The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

This must stop, or we are in for a long series of Trumps, each one 'trumping' the last in hyperbolic vitriol and furthering our collective addiction to outrage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ISP hiccough. Please excuse the double post. Mods feel free to delete.

[Gilrandir]

And clearly not high enough to criminally convict. Possibly not at the civil level. Might be enough to sack. And easily enough to not promote to a job for life.

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?

Try to think of why a person in a position of weakness and vulnerability might not want to stake their "lives, fortune, and sacred honor" on the tiny chance of retribution or justice.

So now the alleged victims are not in the position of weakness and vulnerability because they are thirty years older? Or because they found someone who will turn their weakness into strength and vulnerability into impunity? The someone who didn't care two, five, seven years ago and now he does?

Have you ever encountered any misconduct or malfeasance in government or your profession? Did you report this immediately to authorities? Did you pursue the issue relentlessly if it was not speedily resolved to your satisfaction? If not, would your integrity somehow come into question?

If I didn't do it back then I don't see why I should do it now. Otherwise it will look very much like concealing a crime aka complicity.

If things were so straightforward corruption would not preoccupy political economy, as it would be outed at every instance. Now apply that to sexual assault, and you realize your question serves as its own answer.

I'm the last person to take Kava's side in this story. I can readily believe that he must have done all the things he is charged with. Yet I don't buy that if something surfaces after decades of silence just at the right (or wrong, for the alleged perpetrator) moment it happens just because victims have finally plucked up their hearts and made a step.

[Husar]

Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause. The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

[rory_20_uk]

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

All appointments to the federal bench in the USA are life appointments. All require Senate confirmation.

None, save for the SCOTUS, gets much play in our media except for pieces covering how many bench slots are unfilled and the political infighting which prevents/slows appointments to those vacancies. Please note that slowing/refusing to confirm judges has been a tactic of the party not holding the White House for decades now and both parties have been ridiculous on this matter. The judge nominees themselves are rarely discussed at any length by the media except those nominees for SCOTUS. The Senate GOP leadership's inane refusal to allow a vote on Obama's last SCOTUS appointment for most of a year until his term ended is only the most publicized example of this mis-management.

Justice Kavanagh would have filled out the forms used by the FBI in conducting background checks (such as are used to establish security clearances). He would certainly have been asked to report having been convicted for any felonious behavior. I am not sure if he would have been asked something along the lines of "have you ever committed...even if you have not been prosecuted for same" type questions. Questions akin to this do show up on security clearance questionnaires, but I am not sure if the same holds true for background checks for appointees. If such questions were asked and he responded in the negative, and if he had done such an act, that would be perjury. Montmorency says he has already perjured himself, but I am not sure if he is going off FOIA material or media material in asserting that.

[Strike For The South]

I was wrong.
Monty was right.
Remember kids, Vote Democrat until the trumpets sound, Kingdom come, and we all go home.

Cronyn had a particularly reprehensible tweet. Something along the lines of "might not be beers for Brett but Bubbly for Brett". I want nothing to do with that or a justice who (at the very least) is a lair and conspiracy theorist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.dafdca453526

Pretty much this. Although I would hesitate to call my crazy belief that everyone should have medicine as "center right". However, in the past, Some of the more moderate GOP candidates would appeal to me. That can no longer be the case.

[Montmorency]

Is this the first job that he has had a chance to land in thirty years? If not, how come his other promotions (frankly, I don't know what they were, but I'm sure there were plenty of jobs and promotions) didn't provoke any row? Perhaps because NOW someone is interested in the to-do which was not the case two, five, seven years ago?



So now the alleged victims are not in the position of weakness and vulnerability because they are thirty years older? Or because they found someone who will turn their weakness into strength and vulnerability into impunity? The someone who didn't care two, five, seven years ago and now he does?



If I didn't do it back then I don't see why I should do it now. Otherwise it will look very much like concealing a crime aka complicity.



I'm the last person to take Kava's side in this story. I can readily believe that he must have done all the things he is charged with. Yet I don't buy that if something surfaces after decades of silence just at the right (or wrong, for the alleged perpetrator) moment it happens just because victims have finally plucked up their hearts and made a step.

No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.

The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?

Let's imagine (I'm not saying this ever happened) that you sexually assaulted a girl in gymnasium. Let's say, 15 years later, you are approved to the position of teacher or professor at some school somewhere. Is this woman whom you assaulted half a lifetime ago supposed to be stalking you, ready to pounce and lay down large amounts of her own time and money in trying to prevent you from getting a job? To put her reputation on the line, to be labeled as a troublemaker in her own circles? A thousand men could assault a thousand women, and this kind of scenario would play out maybe once. The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny. The costs for the accuser are higher, but so are the costs of not speaking up and allowing a predator into office. These deliberations are always very difficult, and you have to see how culture plays a role. Before a few decades ago, adultery would have been seen as far worse than any number of rapes so long as the victims were "loose women", so coming out until historically recently would have been madness irrespective of the strength of the claims. Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.

Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.

If neoliberalism-caused problems lead people to elect someone who promises to fix the problems with more neoliberalism, then I guess that someone can be both a symptom and a cause. And yes, Hillary would not have been too different from that angle, the mainstream democrats just go for neoliberalism light while the republicans want it stronger with much more libertarianism.

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post. Anyway, a Clinton administration would be better for the country and its people in almost every way, unless you take a wildcard Zizek approach and speculate that the world needs a tragic shock to awaken popular internationalism. Well, we'll get to find out over the next decade if a few years of international fascism on 5 continents can be easily overturned.

[Montmorency]

Montmorency says he has already perjured himself, but I am not sure if he is going off FOIA material or media material in asserting that.

Shammo, I've given multiple examples of Kavanaugh lying under oath, demonstrably so. And for a foul purpose, with conscience of wrong-doing not a benign or "white" one.

If you want more, here are ten-thousand words on "how we know Kavanaugh is lying" - and it's hardly the half of it!

Monty, is it worth your life to shoot the fellow now, or should we allow the electoral and/or removal process to proceed? I am happy with the latter two choices.

Not sure what this is referring to. I have never advocated violence against the President. He must be afforded due process in the last word.

Trump is, I fear, far more of a symptom than a cause.

I agree. That's what has been said and repeated here and everywhere for over a year. Trumpism without Trump will find many depths of depravity to plumb, is what I'm alerting you to. A nightmare on the American continent.

The existential crisis for this republic is not Trump of himself but if the growing culture of hatred and intolerance by far too many from both sides of our traditional spectrum. We are now in an era where the major parties are not seeking to achieve power to accomplish governmental objections but to harm the other side of the spectrum by whatever means.

This must stop, or we are in for a long series of Trumps, each one 'trumping' the last in hyperbolic vitriol and furthering our collective addiction to outrage.

It's really just the Republicans. Mainstream Democrats have not consistently worked to erode institutions and rule of law to build minoritarian power, have not committed to a platform of ecstatic cruelty and malice against perceived enemies over the improvement of the common weal, have not rejected electoral and normative politics in favor of eliminationist and civil war rhetoric. That's Republicans, not Democrats. 10 years ago it was the militias, the best-selling conservative authors, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. Now it's Fox News, the Federalist, Breitbart, Red State websites (along with numerous others), the Republican Congress, and the White House itself. The Republican Party is at war with most of the country, and they want it their way or the helicopter.





This is not fringe, this is mainstream. It's worthy of another thread, but the Republican Party is perhaps history's single most remarkable exemplar of a vanguard-radical project, of the sort pioneered by Lenin.

Americans have been coddled by the mass media to the point that many are not able to independently conceive of the possibility that two organizations or movements may have fundamental qualitative differences between them.


Republican voters love Trump because they see him putting the hurt on liberals, queers, minorities, etc. Any economic damages or gains they take (mostly damages) due to his policies are beside the point; there are likely few limits on what they will sacrifice to see "the elites" burn, even as the real elites (billionaires) are spared. Trump works so well precisely because he can short-circuit politics and get to the emotional core of what apolitical Republican voters want. If this is the most important thing in their lives, then the only ethical option is to subdue them with a minimum of coercion. We can try to identify the reasonable and attempt to reason with them, but only a hidebound liberal or a bleeding-heart socialist could believe in the force of pure reason in the light of contemporary and world history. To the contrary, force shits on reason's back.

Don't make the mistake of allowing presentist complacency to blind you to the momentum of history now; we have not crashed yet, but we can see how the train is moving and where it is moving to. Lest you be inclined to judge my posts as ill-considered or developed out of distemperate passion rather than cold appraisal, let me remind you: In less than a decade within the liberal consensus the inconceivable transformed into the laughable and impossible moved into the preposterous became the merely improbable - until it had, in the pomp and the silence, suddenly arrived like the masque of Red Death. The long 20th century is over. It ended in 2016. This one is just beginning. I don't know if the future holds socialism, but barbarism is to be expected.

We know that civilizations can collapse: they have collapsed before.

[Husar]

I'm not sure how this reflects on what Seamus said in his post.

He was wondering whether Trump was a symptom or a cause and I said he might well be both. The Clinton addition was just because I anticipated certain answers and thought about the alternatives.

The Pinochet shirt is terrible btw.

[Gilrandir]

Which other Judicial appointments hit the mainstream media? Which others are for life? In which other cases would he have been publicly lying?

If the answer to all the above is "none" then there's the difference.

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?

No. They are still in a vulnerable position because they will be physically and politically attacked and threatened, will put their careers at risk, etc., for unclear results. Though obviously a professional adult woman will usually be more prepared than a 15-year-old girl.

How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?

The answer is probably pretty simple: Supreme Court justice is one of the most important positions in the land, and the culture surrounding sexual assault has only in recent years been trending toward promoting disclosure under any circumstances. Anita Hill came out in 1991 against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, and she was eviscerated by both sides despite the apparent merit of her claims. So why try, right?

1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.

The circumstances change, though, if you are running for a major national political office under public scrutiny.

Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?

Can you imagine a woman contacting the newspaper Pravda with a report that Premier Khrushchev had groped and digitally penetrated her (I'm not saying this ever happened)? They would have laughed in her face.

You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.

Your position of skepticism could not yet reasonably apply even to today's actual social climate going forward, let alone retroactively to erase the uncountable millions of sexual assaults that have been perpetrated up to the present day and within living memory.

So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

[rory_20_uk]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

[Gilrandir]

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not interested in the fact if he is fit or unfit or whether he lied or didn't lie. I'm interested in the fact that certain charges appear just at the right moment.

Fair enough. I on the other hand refer judges to be not to perjure themselves in their assessment for the role.

The charges appeared right at the point it was televised he was being considered. Surely more interesting is the FBI were prevented from investigating? Ascertaining the truth and all that?

[Montmorency]

If I were one of the victims I would watch the perpetrator's career closely and would raise hue and cry not when he has almost reached the top of the ladder. Otherwise an expected question would be: So when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (the exapmle is totally conjectural) you were OK with that?



How come that they decided to speak out now? They are ready to put their careers at stake NOW? Is there anyone at power to protect their careers NOW? What about two years ago when he became a D.A. in Arkansas (see above)? Was it OK for a molester to become a D.A.?



1991 =/= 2010, 2013, 2015.



Thus you admit that sexual crimes are no bar for promotion on any under the national level?



You are underestimating the power of the dark side of the force. Laughing was not the thing meant for those who slander the perfect leaders of the best in the world state.

So you totally deny the spinning momentum of the issue under discussion?

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Yes. The threshold - again, the threshold for an individual publicly coming out, putting themselves on the line to block the accused perpetrator - is and has always been very high. In recent years, the threshold may have been reduced with cultural change, though even this will affect younger women more intensely than older ones. And yes, the position of Supreme Court justice is almost as important as Prime Minister of most European countries.

More generally, if you haven't noticed, when sexual assault allegations come at against political figures, they often do so when these figures are attempting to elevate their office. The reasons for this should be obvious: the stakes are higher, and the allegations are more visible and more likely to be acted upon (for example, a politician is unlikely to be investigated if you as a victim go to the police to report it quietly). In the end, victims as a group usually just want to move on with their lives. They're not interested in fighting a war, in almost all cases, unless provoked or afforded a unique opportunity. So people who do receive allegations of this type will tend to be influential, rich, high-level in politics and industry - again, because the stakes are higher. And the victims are more likely to be educated professionals anyway, which potentially affords an impetus and advantage.

And in all this, I'd like you to keep the timeline in mind: The allegations were kept undisclosed for weeks because the accuser contacted her representatives with it and explicitly asked them not to publicize it. Ford only revealed herself once the material was leaked. Because Ford understood what she would have to endure if identified, what she will now have to endure for the rest of her working life. And the subsequent accusations were submitted largely because of Ford's example. The metaphors are obvious: a breaking dam, forging a trail... You can expect that there were more (there are always more) who did not come forward because they believed it to be futile (they were correct), or because their fear and discomfort of going under public scrutiny was too great.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.

Many would not closely stalk someone. They'd get on with their life. She was training as a Doctor which does take a lot of time. That you think you'd do something different is possibly the lowest level of evidence one can get.

He would have a poor witness as a witness or as a defendant since he frequently lied under oath - even if he was innocent. For almost every job interview they'd not have got it due to the lies which there is a small army of people who all agreed with. And most of the evidence he had from the time period showed he was a heavy drinker.

If he'd said he did drink - as do many teenagers / uni students it would be a non-issue. But he lied, and kept on lying. He is, to put it very simply, unfit for the office.

If you had someone interviewing for a job, and you pointed out some unsavory things you had heard about their past, and they started crying and screaming about how this is all a conspiracy to smear their perfect name, that they like beer, they LIKE beer, but so does everyone and they were always paragons of virtue and virgins until late at life, lying about basic details of their lives and exaggerating others, sneering at or evading your questions and mocking you for them, basically demanding the job as an entitlement -

a normal interviewer would tell them something like, "Get out of here or I'm calling the cops." This is what I mean when I say Kavanaugh was held to a lower standard than a security guard or fast food manager.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Gilrandir]

First, are you referring to Kavanaugh? I don't think he was ever D.A. in Arkansas. Bill Clinton was an Attorney General in Arkansas though. Is that whom you mean?

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.

Your questions are "Why would people wait to report?" and "Why would they report when the accused is rising in the public eye?", right? There are the answers.

My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

[Montmorency]

Like I said, the position for the perpetrator was a wild shot sure to go amiss. It might as well have been the sheriff of Orange County or Peace Justice in Oskaloosa, Iowa. It served to exemplify the idea of the previous job which Kavanaugh might have had before he was promoted and which hadn't provoked any resentment from the public.



My answers are somewhat different. I still maintain that there is some driving force behind the scandals whose expiry date is long over. I believe that the considerations you referred to are minor compared to the chance that certain people/organisations see as available and utilize to pursue their political goals. The victims are only pawns in a big political game.

Gilrandir, I'm not sure I quite understand you. It should be obvious that in a political context sexual assault allegations will always have a political valence. This is by definition almost. It's hard to see how it could be otherwise, unless there were some robust law enforcement/investigative mechanism to automatically investigate every possible angle with non-political expertise, and all political groups have the utmost faith in these.

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

Questioning the (assumed) victim on their motives defies reason. Humans make odd choices all the time when it comes to emotional trauma, and my brain certainly can't justify judging a woman for waiting three decades to speak out when I still wake up from nightmares of myself forgetting a final (test), and I've been out of college for years!

[Gilrandir]

Are you trying to say that sexual assault allegations over long-past events are somehow politically generated by political actors? Like, there are armies canvassing on the ground looking to gin up accusers or something? That would be attributing far more power and resources to political parties than they actually have.

I'm well into All the kings men by R.P.Warren. Reading it and having seeing how things are done in Ukraine I tend to believe that politicians interested in the issue are always alert for misconducts of any persons liable for a big appointment and are absolutely indifferent to those misconducts if a big appointment never comes. And if this appointment is going to happen/has just happened they are likely to call a Jack Burden and ask him to find all he can on a Judge Irwin (see the mentioned book). So "generated" is too strong a word, but dug out and fanned out of proportions is what I guess is happenning in such cases. The ultimate purpose of such people in the issue under discussion would be to topple Trump (or at least to hurt him as much as possible). So their aims seemed to chime with the victims' coming out. One could argue if it was started by victims and then carried on by political actors or vice versa, but it really doesn't matter much (to me anyway).

Who cares when and why accusations appear when they do? All that matters is the validity of the claims.

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

[Husar]

Blablabla, if all the time spent bickering over assumptions had been spent on a proper investigation...

[Beskar]

Max Boot on why his own party, the Republicans need to burn to the ground so Conversativism in America can be saved from white nationalist trash that hijacked his party.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics...a-clean-start/
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17955...-gop-goldwater

[a completely inoffensive name]

If a person knew about a (alleged) crime and kept silent, would it qualify as complicity?

Not if that person is the victim.