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.