(10-03-2019 02:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

This was a job interview not a criminal proceeding.

But I think you are on pretty thin ice if you let unsubstantiated allegations sway you in an employment action. I don't believe her. I don't know whether I believe him or not. But I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt when her story is so full of problems.

Thank you. I definitely thought that I was literally watching Kavanaugh complete a job interview. I was surprised they hired him after all that yelling, but this really clears things up.

Do any of the pro-Kavanaugh posters actually believe he was truthful when testifying about his drinking habits, particularly when Senator Klobuchar asked him if he ever drank the point where he didn’t remember what happened? You all keep falling back on “I don’t think he sexually assaulted anyone” without addressing what I think were pretty obvious misleading (at best) efforts to minimize his drinking and partying. Was his performance really something that left you with a warm, fuzzy feeling for a lifetime appointee, knowing there were a couple handful of other similarly qualified individuals who would have ruled basically the same on cases and without toeing the line of perjury on any topic?

(10-03-2019 08:52 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Do any of the pro-Kavanaugh posters actually believe he was truthful when testifying about his drinking habits, particularly when Senator Klobuchar asked him if he ever drank the point where he didn’t remember what happened? You all keep falling back on “I don’t think he sexually assaulted anyone” without addressing what I think were pretty obvious misleading (at best) efforts to minimize his drinking and partying. Was his performance really something that left you with a warm, fuzzy feeling for a lifetime appointee, knowing there were a couple handful of other similarly qualified individuals who would have ruled basically the same on cases and without toeing the line of perjury on any topic?

I don't know. I haven't seen anything approaching compelling evidence that he was lying.

My most likely scenario remains that the left viewed him as the potential vote to overturn RvW, and therefore anything--and I mean literally anything--to stop him was fair game.

I understand your point Big, and it would be nice if people could be honest about their shortcomings.....

but the reality is that every single one of those people asking Kavanaugh if, when he was 20ish yrs old, he drank stupidly... has done at least as bad and very likely a thousand times worse. They are hypocrites pandering to other hypocrites... and 'I don't remember' is the sort of response that such hypocritical questions deserve in my book.

The 'lifetime appointment' comment is similarly pointless as we're electing a judge, not the Pope. I believe one of Kagans qualifications was that she was more like real people.... well, guess what? Kavanaugh is like 70% of college students and probably 70% of those who didn't go to college as well in his 20 yr old drinking habits.

Again, yes it would be nice if people weren't hypocrites (I certainly don't mean you just to be clear... I mean politicians and the press) and that we could value candor.... but the TRUTH is that nobody remembers things that vividly from 30 years ago, unless perhaps they were especially traumatic... but 'yeah, I had some pretty wild nights in college' when someone is accusing you of raping them isn't going to play well in the press, even if you didn't rape anyone and it's the truth. I don't remember is not only factually accurate, but professionally expedient. As you're a lawyer, I'm quite convinced that you wouldn't advise your client to 'remember' anything that he didn't actually remember pretty vividly., You'd tell him not to guess, not to generalize... to admit what you know you absolutely remember, and not what you don't.

Wouldn't you?

We have pretty much decided here that memory can be both deceptive and incomplete, especially if decades old.

But Big's point was about hypocrisy. I think most of the people questioning Kavanaugh's fitness were hypocrites unless they have perfect memory and never drank to excess when they were in school. I wonder how many of them would be perfectly candid about their drinking under scrutiny by their enemies.

I don't care if RVW is confirmed or overthrown. It will have both good and bad consequences either way. It has good and bad consequences now. The whole hysterical attack was because they were defending RVW. I am sure that these same people would no qualms about confirming Bill Clinton to the court. He has his license back, right? They wouldn't give a damn about the allegations against him, and most of those women are dead, anyway. But he would save RVW. That's the important thing.

We are here quibbling on whether or not he should have been confirmed due to age old unproven allegations. But the Senators who sat in judgement didn't care. If he would have pledged to never vote against RVW, he would have been confirmed with 90+ votes.

(10-03-2019 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know. I haven't seen anything approaching compelling evidence that he was lying.

A bunch of his former Yale classmates came forward and said he definitely drank to the point he couldn't remember, and they only came forward after seeing his testimony where he denied doing so.

(10-03-2019 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My most likely scenario remains that the left viewed him as the potential vote to overturn RvW, and therefore anything--and I mean literally anything--to stop him was fair game.

To quote a great philosopher, "I haven't seen anything approaching compelling evidence" on this accusation.

(10-03-2019 11:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But Big's point was about hypocrisy. I think most of the people questioning Kavanaugh's fitness were hypocrites unless they have perfect memory and never drank to excess when they were in school. I wonder how many of them would be perfectly candid about their drinking under scrutiny by their enemies.

He was under oath and he should have told the whole truth. If any of the people questioning him were placed under oath and lied, I would have the same attitude toward them. Again, our entire system of justice is built on the idea that people tell the truth when under oath. Obviously it doesn't really work out that way in real life, but I think at the very least Supreme Court justices should be held to that standard.

(10-03-2019 11:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am sure that these same people would no qualms about confirming Bill Clinton to the court. He has his license back, right? They wouldn't give a damn about the allegations against him, and most of those women are dead, anyway. But he would save RVW. That's the important thing.

Clinton lied under oath and it was proper to impeach him. He should not be confirmed to any lifetime judicial appointment under any circumstances.

(10-03-2019 11:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are here quibbling on whether or not he should have been confirmed due to age old unproven allegations. But the Senators who sat in judgement didn't care. If he would have pledged to never vote against RVW, he would have been confirmed with 90+ votes.

Actually, you are quibbling about unproven allegations of sexual misconduct. I am quibbling about whether he lied or was grossly misleading while testifying under oath about his drinking and partying. So we're kind of talking past each other.

I'm a little disappointed that so many people seem OK with such low standards for lifetime appointments. There have been 114 Supreme Court justices in the history of this country. My standards for who should receive confirmation are pretty high. "Senators are hypocrites too" isn't a valid reason to put someone on the USSC. "Senators are liars too" isn't a valid reason to put someone on the USSC. If you held conservatives (elected and appointed) to higher standards and I held progressives (elected and appointed) to higher standards, the country would undoubtedly be better for it.

Easy example - former Democratic Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson was found with $100,000 case wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer. No way I would vote for someone like that under any circumstances. Even if control of the House hinged on it. Even if he hadn't been convicted (and had that conviction overturned), there is quite literally no truly innocent explanation for that kind of behavior and that kind of person should not be in the government. I was thrilled when he eventually lost to Republican Joseph Cao and then happy when Congressman Cao later lost to now-Congressman Cedric Richmond.

(10-03-2019 04:38 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 04:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 02:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 08:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As you said, it is he said/she said. You have chosen to (a) believe her, and (b) assume he is lying. I choose the opposite. I just don't think you should predicate your position on choices that could go either way.

Let me make a correction as i otherwise agree. I haven't chosen to believe him... I've chosen that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.... and that burden hasn't remotely been met. His recollection or not shouldn't imply guilt. That's not how our system of justice works. I can believe that he did something but without some reasonable proof, it shouldn't keep him from a position that he is otherwise qualified for.

This was a job interview not a criminal proceeding.

That is the common and popular retort for people who wish to selectively apply the principles of rule of law at their whim, and with no other regard than the extremely shallow one.

I agree with Fountains of WG, the criminal law burden of proof has no place in the discussion of whether someone should receive a lifetime appointment to the judicial branch. There have been a lot of criminal trials where someone was not convicted by the jury but where any person with an iota of common sense would not necessarily believe the individual was innocent, just because the burden of proof was not carried to prove guilt.

Tanqtonic, I don't really understand your response. I believe what I wrote regardless of the person being nominated for a position. Not sure how that makes my position "selectively applied" or applied "at my whim." Everyone nominated for Senate confirmation should be held to a high bar. Plenty of nominees have been withdrawn over the years and replaced by nominees who didn't have as many concerns raised in either background checks or confirmation hearings. I mean, Kavanaugh didn't exactly sail through on his D.C. Cir. nomination and was accused after that confirmation hearing of misleading the Senate. Plenty of other conservative jurists could have sailed through the nomination process and didn't have as many issues as Kavanaugh, even if you completely ignore the allegations of sexual misconduct. There were even some reports right after Trump nominated Kavanaugh suggesting that Mcconnell preferred some of the other options because they would be easier to confirm.

I would disagree with you rather strongly. You are correct that a confirmation or a job interview for a sewer ditch digger does not legally require the 'rule of law' with the associated compendium of rule of civil procedure and federal rules of evidence.

But as a basic tenet, the 'rule of law' encompasses some cute little niceties I find to be rather quaint and useful.

Hearsay, burden of evidence, ability to face an accuser all have role; and the more important the position the more important those niceties become.

But the pithy as fk comment that the rule of law (even as those informal concepts that in my mind become more and more important as the position rises) doesnt apply (nor shouldnt ostensibly) is rather grotesque in the application it is set forth in.

In fact it imo devolves to a myna bird chant to dispense with those base 'niceties' at a whim. Especially at the level we are talking about.

If you want to subscribe fully to that, then for all intents and purposes an impeachment and the succeeding trial in the Senate are 'job interviews' since impeachment is a political act. I guess we should also adhere to the brian dead mantra about no rule of law for that job interview as well in your pov?

Late night text dumps look bad for El Jefe.

(10-04-2019 02:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I would disagree with you rather strongly. You are correct that a confirmation or a job interview for a sewer ditch digger does not legally require the 'rule of law' with the associated compendium of rule of civil procedure and federal rules of evidence.

But as a basic tenet, the 'rule of law' encompasses some cute little niceties I find to be rather quaint and useful.

Hearsay, burden of evidence, ability to face an accuser all have role; and the more important the position the more important those niceties become.

But the pithy as fk comment that the rule of law (even as those informal concepts that in my mind become more and more important as the position rises) doesnt apply (nor shouldnt ostensibly) is rather grotesque in the application it is set forth in.

In fact it imo devolves to a myna bird chant to dispense with those base 'niceties' at a whim. Especially at the level we are talking about.

If you want to subscribe fully to that, then for all intents and purposes an impeachment and the succeeding trial in the Senate are 'job interviews' since impeachment is a political act. I guess we should also adhere to the brian dead mantra about no rule of law for that job interview as well in your pov?

He had a chance to face his accuser, but many of the witnesses supporting the allegations for what happened at Yale (I'm not talking about the Blasey Ford stuff), as well as the accuser herself, were not allowed to testify. So if anything, it works the other way. He was allowed to deny allegations under oath without being refuted by any witnesses under oath. If it was a criminal trial, which it wasn't, that would be like allowing the accused to deny all charges under oath and then not allow any other witnesses to testify. The only way hearsay factors into the equation is because, again, many witnesses were not allowed to testify. Pretty much anything Kavanaugh allegedly said in these circumstances fits a hearsay exception.

I'm arguing that the burden should be lower for a confirmation hearing than a criminal trial. But that is already true since a confirmation hearing requires a 50% vote and a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict, so I'm not really sure how that point benefits your argument.

I'd really like to drop the Kavanaugh thing. I wasn't trying to tear a bandaid off a wound when I initially mentioned it. I was just trying to point out that I hope all the folks defending Kavanaugh would do the same if the same thing happened to a Democrat/progressive/liberal appointee. What are your thoughts on Al Franken being forced out of office (putting aside your disagreements with his politics - as a side point, I think the burden is different for elected officials since they have to face voters so their is a more accessible mechanism for removing them from office).

If Kavanaugh had been a liberal appointee by Obama, I would argue that he should have been withdrawn because I don't think he was honest when under oath. Plenty of other Democrat/progressive/liberal appointees would have been sufficiently qualified and been able to cross over that low threshold.

(10-03-2019 09:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I understand your point Big, and it would be nice if people could be honest about their shortcomings.....

but the reality is that every single one of those people asking Kavanaugh if, when he was 20ish yrs old, he drank stupidly... has done at least as bad and very likely a thousand times worse. They are hypocrites pandering to other hypocrites... and 'I don't remember' is the sort of response that such hypocritical questions deserve in my book.

The 'lifetime appointment' comment is similarly pointless as we're electing a judge, not the Pope. I believe one of Kagans qualifications was that she was more like real people.... well, guess what? Kavanaugh is like 70% of college students and probably 70% of those who didn't go to college as well in his 20 yr old drinking habits.

Again, yes it would be nice if people weren't hypocrites (I certainly don't mean you just to be clear... I mean politicians and the press) and that we could value candor.... but the TRUTH is that nobody remembers things that vividly from 30 years ago, unless perhaps they were especially traumatic... but 'yeah, I had some pretty wild nights in college' when someone is accusing you of raping them isn't going to play well in the press, even if you didn't rape anyone and it's the truth. I don't remember is not only factually accurate, but professionally expedient. As you're a lawyer, I'm quite convinced that you wouldn't advise your client to 'remember' anything that he didn't actually remember pretty vividly., You'd tell him not to guess, not to generalize... to admit what you know you absolutely remember, and not what you don't.

Wouldn't you?

To the two bolded lines.

No one was trying to rake him over the coals for drinking, so I fail to see what made that line of questioning hypocritical. The issue that stemmed from that line of questioning was the seeming inability of Kavanaugh to tell the truth about his partying ways in high school and college, especially given the numerous people that spoke to the press about him being a hard partier, and sometimes sloppy drunk.

And the whole point of testifying under oath is that you don't like, and tell the truth, even if it isn't expedient for your career or play well in the press. Had Kavanaugh admitted to that, he wouldn't have then opened himself up to the very easy, and reasonable accusation that he lied under oath because, as you said, it wouldn't have played well in the press if he told the likely truth.

Well, Big, I think you run a tighter ship than Congressional Democrats. Wish we had 100 of you in place of 100 of them. But I suspect your standards are so high you would never vote to confirm any candidate for SCOTUS, ever.

But a place in the SCOTUS should not turn on whether or not one is rigidly brutal in one's self assessment of one's behavior 30+ years ago. It should go to actual
behavior more recent.

And I think his judges were hypocritical, regardless of whether they have to face voters. And this was about hypocrisy, not Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh was one of four on Trump's short list. You and I both know the Democrats had prepared briefs showing why each of the four was not qualified. Trump could have nominated the Virgin Mary and there would have been an uproar and an effort to disqualify her.

Lying does not seem to disqualify politicians from office. I present Blumenthal, who lied about his service, and Warren, who lied about her ancestry. Bush 41, OTOH, broke a promise and the campaign slogan was "Bush lied". Seems like the honesty yardstick is used only on opponents. Isn't that hypocrisy?

The efforts to smear Kavanaugh and the intentional leaking of Ford's letter against her will just reek of hypocrisy. Should Trump get another chance to name a Justice, in this term or the next, you will see the same hue and cry from the hypocrites.

I agree in toto with your original premise about hypocrisy, just did not agree with the assumptions regarding Kavanaugh as an example. We seem to have thoroughly fleshed that out.

Thanks for your opinions.

These 'other people' know that he was so drunk he couldn't remember? Seriously?
and now you're talking about 'likely truth'?

The whole point about testifying under oath IS to tell the truth... and if you honestly don't remember that on June 12th, 1985 at a party at a frat house that you drank too much.... then you ABSOLUTELY should not admit to having done so, even if it is certainly possible that you did.

Kavanaugh said in his opening statement to the Senate:
“Sometimes, I had too many beers.” “We sometimes did goofy or stupid things. I doubt we are alone in looking back in high school and cringing at some things.”

You have chosen to believe these other people, many of whom weren't testifying under oath and had no burden of proof whatsoever. You're engaging in Judge Judy Justice where 'this sounds more likely' so I'm going with that... which is perfectly fine for you as an individual to do.... but remember that judge Judy is spending her own money, not the defendants.

It's not remotely appropriate here. These are confirmation hearings.

Let me put it in another light... Let's say in college you sometimes drank until drunk, but only on campus because you knew you were safe/could get home/didn't have to drive.... and you were nominated as a judge and someone accused you of being a black-out drunk in college and they had a picture of you at an off campus party taken at just the right moment to where your eyes in the picture looked like you were totally plastered... and we have your admission that you sometimes drank too much, with a dozen people saying they witnessed that on campus, and another three saying they also witnessed it off campus and there was a picture that SEEMED to support that claim...

Someone could easily decide that you likely lied... and you're denied a job that you're well qualified for NOT because you did anything wrong, but because someone accused you of something they couldn't remotely prove, but you couldn't 100% DIS prove either.

Someone can say 'tough luck' and 'he shouldn't have lied', but in this case above, you wouldn't have lied... they just didn't believe you.

OO - I'm really bothered by your arguments. Your basic argument seems to be:
(1) Others are hypocrites so its ok to support hypocrites
(2) Others are liars so its ok to support liars

How about holding everyone to a higher standard instead of accepting a crap standard for everyone? I gave 2 examples of Democrats who I felt acted so egregiously that I could not have supported them. Strangely, both examples were of Democratic politicians named William Jefferson.

You have any examples of conservative politicians or judges who did something you found so outrageous or offensive that you could not support them? I'm genuinely curious where you draw the line.

Incidentally, while I have never been in the Senate and will never be in the Senate, how I would have voted on specific USSC nominations is kind of moot. I am too young to really comment on Ginsberg and Breyer, though they were both pretty uncontroversial in their time. Thomas has been in the news enough and I have learned enough that I would have had the same problem with him as I do with Kavanaugh. I certainly would have voted for Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Not really surprising since they received 78, 68, and 63 votes in favor of confirmation. Alito and Gorsuch would have been closer decisions. I probably would have voted for both, though I don't agree with their interpretation of the law and constitution in many ways. But unless they are either extremely outside the mainstream of judicial thought or have what I consider to be serious character issues, then I believe the President has the right to appoint whom he/she wants and that the vote to confirm an appointee isn't the same as a vote in an election.

Hambone10 - respectfully, we were denied the opportunity to have a better chance at "the truth" because the FBI's 2nd investigation was so narrow and because many witnesses were not allowed to testify after the allegations of sexual misconduct and drinking surfaced. Its unfair to attack the credibility of witnesses who were never even given the opportunity to produce testimony under oath. If they refused to testify under oath, that would be different. But many of them wanted to and were not allowed to.

In heresay terms, there are a number of indicia of reliability in play here. The fact that some witnesses only came forward after they felt like Kavanaugh lied under oath actually make them more credible as witnesses. They weren't out to get him by any means, but were bothered by what they believed were misrepresentations and/or lies under oath. As a reminder, here is the exchange that bothered me the most.

(10-03-2019 09:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As you're a lawyer, I'm quite convinced that you wouldn't advise your client to 'remember' anything that he didn't actually remember pretty vividly., You'd tell him not to guess, not to generalize... to admit what you know you absolutely remember, and not what you don't.

Wouldn't you?

I tell every single witness that I am preparing for a deposition are trial that there are 2 rules I want them to remember and follow. The first rule is that you never talk about Fight Club. Oops, I mean the first rule is cardio. Oops again! The first rule is that you always tell the truth. So while I would never want them to admit something specific that they didn't remember, as you have suggested in a few posts, I would also never want them to deny a generality that was true (such as "did you ever drink to the point that you couldn't remember things?") and would have significant testimony or other evidence that would contradict the denial. So if someone involved in a car accident is asked whether they ever drove over the speed limit, I would prefer they tell the truth (usually yes) and then deny that they were doing so prior to the accident (if they remember). Of if a doctor is asked whether they know for a fact that they performed a certain step during a procedure, and the doctor cannot specifically remember that procedure (because he/she has performed the same procedure a hundred times since the alleged malpractice), they explain that they always do the procedure the same way and that their typical routine includes that step, while acknowledging that they can't remember that specific procedure.

I would have respected and believed Kavanaugh significantly more if he had answered: "Senator Klobuchar, as I testified earlier, there were certainly times in high school and college when I drank a lot and did some things that, looking back, were embarrassing and I wish I had not done. And there were a few times when I drank to the point that I couldn't remember everything that had happened the night before. And I will tell you, its pretty embarrassing for me to admit this in front of the entire world, even though I know lots of people have had similar experiences when they were young adults. But I can tell you unequivocally that no matter how much I drank, I would never, under any circumstances, engage in the kind of sexual misconduct that has been alleged by Dr. Blasey Ford or Mrs. Ramirez. I am not the kind of person who would have ever done something like that, and that is as true when I am completely sober as it was when I was drinking as a young man. And I know the follow-up question to my response is inevitably going to be - "If you admit that you couldn't remember everything you did on some occasions, how can you deny these allegations?" To which I can only respond that I know myself and I know I would never have acted in the way alleged by these women. I know it in the same way that I'm sure some of you Senators who are questioning me now also know that you would never do something like that, even though it is likely some of you drank too much at some point when you were also young adults."

(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Hambone10 - respectfully, we were denied the opportunity to have a better chance at "the truth" because the FBI's 2nd investigation was so narrow and because many witnesses were not allowed to testify after the allegations of sexual misconduct and drinking surfaced. Its unfair to attack the credibility of witnesses who were never even given the opportunity to produce testimony under oath. If they refused to testify under oath, that would be different. But many of them wanted to and were not allowed to.

Absolutely respectfully. I hope nothing comes across any other way.

I haven't attacked the credibility of any witnesses at all.

I don't believe a confirmation hearing is the proper forum for an FBI or criminal investigation... and these accusations were of crimes, even if a statute has run. If you want me to agree that rules of evidence and cross examination etc weren't followed, I think I've already agreed with that. The only difference between us seems to be the concern with which side isn't being given a fair shake. I would be more than happy for a full investigation to have taken place... but as I understand it, it couldn't because the statute had run... so this was more about the 'show' than people's rights.

Quote:In heresay terms, there are a number of indicia of reliability in play here. The fact that some witnesses only came forward after they felt like Kavanaugh lied under oath actually make them more credible as witnesses. They weren't out to get him by any means, but were bothered by what they believed were misrepresentations and/or lies under oath. As a reminder, here is the exchange that bothered me the most.

They weren't out to get them by any means etc. How do you know? It sure seems that he and his freshman roommate, the only one who (according to this exchange) said he had been so drunk as to not remember things and was belligerent when drunk had issues.

Klobuchar starts off by calling him an alcoholic... I'd note that she also ends it that way. In the middle, she talks about people who said x and y and z about him... and x and y aren't really a big deal... and z may be, but it's being disputed... and she is using the volume of (insignificant but proven) x and y to imply the weight of (significant but unproven) z.

Absolutely I get that he wasn't willing to answer the questions with a simple yes or no, because the way she was asking questions was going to imply that any acceptance of (as an example) similarities between her alcoholic father and him would imply agreement that he had a drinking problem. A fact NOT REMOTELY supported by any evidence whatsoever.

(10-04-2019 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As you're a lawyer, I'm quite convinced that you wouldn't advise your client to 'remember' anything that he didn't actually remember pretty vividly., You'd tell him not to guess, not to generalize... to admit what you know you absolutely remember, and not what you don't.

Wouldn't you?

I tell every single witness that I am preparing for a deposition are trial that there are 2 rules I want them to remember and follow. The first rule is that you never talk about Fight Club. Oops, I mean the first rule is cardio. Oops again! The first rule is that you always tell the truth. So while I would never want them to admit something specific that they didn't remember, as you have suggested in a few posts, I would also never want them to deny a generality that was true (such as "did you ever drink to the point that you couldn't remember things?") and would have significant testimony or other evidence that would contradict the denial. So if someone involved in a car accident is asked whether they ever drove over the speed limit, I would prefer they tell the truth (usually yes) and then deny that they were doing so prior to the accident (if they remember). Of if a doctor is asked whether they know for a fact that they performed a certain step during a procedure, and the doctor cannot specifically remember that procedure (because he/she has performed the same procedure a hundred times since the alleged malpractice), they explain that they always do the procedure the same way and that their typical routine includes that step, while acknowledging that they can't remember that specific procedure.

I would have respected and believed Kavanaugh significantly more if he had answered: "Senator Klobuchar, as I testified earlier, there were certainly times in high school and college when I drank a lot and did some things that, looking back, were embarrassing and I wish I had not done. And there were a few times when I drank to the point that I couldn't remember everything that had happened the night before. And I will tell you, its pretty embarrassing for me to admit this in front of the entire world, even though I know lots of people have had similar experiences when they were young adults. But I can tell you unequivocally that no matter how much I drank, I would never, under any circumstances, engage in the kind of sexual misconduct that has been alleged by Dr. Blasey Ford or Mrs. Ramirez. I am not the kind of person who would have ever done something like that, and that is as true when I am completely sober as it was when I was drinking as a young man. And I know the follow-up question to my response is inevitably going to be - "If you admit that you couldn't remember everything you did on some occasions, how can you deny these allegations?" To which I can only respond that I know myself and I know I would never have acted in the way alleged by these women. I know it in the same way that I'm sure some of you Senators who are questioning me now also know that you would never do something like that, even though it is likely some of you drank too much at some point when you were also young adults."

and I'm willing to bet that if you were representing Kavanaugh and the prosecution had presented their questions the way she had, you would have objected to them.

I agree that I wish people could give answers as you gave above and that the simple TRUTH of it would be enough... I said exactly the same thing.... but the REALITY of it is that in the political as opposed to legal realm, such honesty is twisted and perverted by these hypocrites... and your video is IMO a perfect example. She's not seeking truth, she's already decided what the truth is... that he has a drinking problem... In a legal realm, his attorney would object to the inferences... or at the very least... be able to 'correct' it on cross. In politics, nobody cares. They got their sound byte.

clarity on the x, y z....
Not the most important example, but an obvious one to demonstrate what I'm talking about. She's talking about People who drank in high school(x) and college (y) and binge drinking and alcoholism where 90 year olds are paying the consequences of their actions (z). With a drinking age of 18, the percentage of people who did x and y, but not z is EXTREMELY high, and she's trying to equate them. You're an alcoholic because you drank in college and so did my dad and he's an alcoholic.

She does the same thing in reverse later where she asks about him drinking so much so as to not remember...
and her 'but' is that a roommate said he was sometimes belligerent (which has nothing to do with memory)
and then another who basically says 'I don't believe him'.... which he disputes as being what he actually said, but whatever.

Neither of those comments are proof of anything or a challenge of anything. They're statements. He put in writing that he had never drank so much that he forgot... so why does this guy say you were sometimes belligerent and this other guy say he doesn't believe you?

It seems obvious he was pissed, and i would have been too. If that's a disqualification then fine... but that's not about lying under oath (your charge)...

(10-04-2019 02:58 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - I'm really bothered by your arguments. Your basic argument seems to be:
(1) Others are hypocrites so its ok to support hypocrites
(2) Others are liars so its ok to support liars

How about holding everyone to a higher standard instead of accepting a crap standard for everyone? I gave 2 examples of Democrats who I felt acted so egregiously that I could not have supported them. Strangely, both examples were of Democratic politicians named William Jefferson.

You have any examples of conservative politicians or judges who did something you found so outrageous or offensive that you could not support them? I'm genuinely curious where you draw the line.

Incidentally, while I have never been in the Senate and will never be in the Senate, how I would have voted on specific USSC nominations is kind of moot. I am too young to really comment on Ginsberg and Breyer, though they were both pretty uncontroversial in their time. Thomas has been in the news enough and I have learned enough that I would have had the same problem with him as I do with Kavanaugh. I certainly would have voted for Roberts, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Not really surprising since they received 78, 68, and 63 votes in favor of confirmation. Alito and Gorsuch would have been closer decisions. I probably would have voted for both, though I don't agree with their interpretation of the law and constitution in many ways. But unless they are either extremely outside the mainstream of judicial thought or have what I consider to be serious character issues, then I believe the President has the right to appoint whom he/she wants and that the vote to confirm an appointee isn't the same as a vote in an election.

You think hedging on questions about drinking thirty ago is a serious character issue?

I am sorry my agreement with your original premise is troubling.

I think all people in public life have spotty backgrounds, just like all people in life. To be honest, if what you have admitted to is the worst you have done, then I think you are the most spotless person I have ever known.

I think having your panties in a twist over Kavanaugh's response to his drinking questions is a bridge too far. Oerfection is not a requirement. Fact is every SCOTUS candidate is careful what they say, and Kavanaugh most of all because he was the object of a Congressional smear campaign run by people who can only be described as hypocrites.

I don't regard Kavanaugh as either a hypocrite OR a liar, so I have no problem with supporting him, while you seem to have no problem supporting the outrageous and devious actions against him.

Perhaps you could give me some names of Republican politicians and I could yea or nay them individually. But when I think of hypocrisy, Ted Kennedy is the first name that comes to mind, and Bill Clinton the second so I guess you have to go back to Watergate. No I would not have supported Richard Nixon for SCOTUS. But to be honest, I just wasn't that interested in politics back then.

Here we are, back at the precise type of thing that turns me off on Democrats - the finger-pointing accusations and holier-than-thou attitude from the hypocrites. You stand with them if it makes you feel holier. I think Kavanaugh was/is qualified, and the president should have been given his choice without the circus.

Do you really think if the FBI had had more time to investigate, they would have returned a report that "he appears to have drank more than he admits"?

(10-04-2019 02:58 PM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - I'm really bothered by your arguments. Your basic argument seems to be:
(1) Others are hypocrites so its ok to support hypocrites
(2) Others are liars so its ok to support liars

Just for clarification, my position is somewhat different. I am not convinced that Kavanaugh is a liar or hypocrite, and I am not ready to condemn him for either of those unless and until someone produces proof. And no, nothing that I have seen so far constitutes proof.