(10-01-2019 04:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 03:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even the lady's friends did not support her claim - unless you count her friends in the Senate. Meanwhile, we had 30 years of no complaints on Kavanaugh. I don't think Ford was lying - I think she is confused and may have an embedded delusion. She was inconsistent and vague. But you are the lawyer - did you see evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt?

Lord help me if I ever have to defend all the things I did as a Rice student. I would be in prison for ten lifetimes. And yes, beer played an important part. But the 50 years since then have been much different. I would rather be judged on my actions as an adult than my actions as a kid.

I was talking less about Christine Blasey Ford's allegations about Kavanaugh in high school and more about: (1) Deborah Ramirez's allegation that Kavanaugh drunkenly thrust his bare genitals at her during a party at Yale; and (2) Kavanaugh's obviously misleading testimony about how hard he partied in high school and college.

It would have been very easy for Kavanaugh to say that he drank and partied a boat load during that time of his life and still denied all the allegations. It would have been easy for him to explain that he quickly matured and hasn't been that immature young man for 30+ years. Instead, he repeatedly minimized his drinking and gave bizarre explanations for slang terms in his yearbook.

I'm scared to ask what you did when you were a Rice student. I drank and partied plenty of times. I never thrust my naked genitals at anyone (without consent) and certainly never in front of a group of people. There is only one thing that truly embarrasses me to admit. I drove drunk once, thank God no one was hurt and that I didn't get pulled over. My flimsy defense at the time that I was following a friend who was completely sober but that doesn't excuse my dangerous and reckless decision. Other than that, I liked beer and many other liquors, I smoked pot once, and tried to never be an a$$hole to anyone.

You are a choir boy next to me.

Yet I grew up, married, raised three kids, became a community leader, ran multiple businesses. I did not act my whole life the way I acted at 19, and if we are to judge the totality of a man's life by the way he acted one time, or at one time, you should be in jail with the rest of the drunk drivers.

We have things like probation, statute of limitations, first offender sentencing, etc, because people can change and often do.

In my businesses I gave ex-cons a second chance. never regretted a single one of them.

I saw two things about Kavanaugh, a long history of being a good man, and uncorroborated, vague accusations that clearly were jumped on by political opponents of Trump.

I did not think Ford was lying, I thought she was mistaken.

I have posted here that my own sister is delusional. she will testify under under oath that a particular man who works on the landscaping crew has raped her many times. he also raped her dog and runs a theft crew out of the spaces between the floors in her house. Her testimony would be as vague as Ford's, and likely as truthful.

I don't know anything about the Ramirez testimony, but if it was a one time thing, then I have some stories to tell you about Rice students who have gone on to prominence, including political prominence.

I once again ask you, counselor, if you were on a jury, would be you vote guilty?

But we stray from the topic, which is hypocrisy. I quite agree with with your "put yourself in the other's place" method, and when I do, I find that very often the left comes out hypocritical more often than the right.

For example, didn't certain Democrats reach out to Ukraine to find dirt on Trump? The ukrainians apologized for it.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435...on-emerges




https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-cli...1569881729

When right wing demonstrators resort to violence, I think that is wrong. when left wing demonstrators resort to violence, I think that is wrong. The motivations do not matter.

When left wing agitators try to shame Republicans, that is wrong. when right wingers do it, it is wrong.

Yet we see the left praising or excusing these people for their "woke" attitudes.

One of the earliest and best pieces of advice I ever got was to walk a mile in the other man's shoes before condemning him. Still good advice, and advice I try to follow.

You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

And Deborah Ramirez didn't testify and most of her corroborating witnesses were not even interviewed by the FBI. So that's a separate problem.

And I'm not trying to hold Kavanaugh's past behavior against him in any meaningful sense. I could easily be convinced that any screwups from ages 16-22 do not reflect on the kind of person he is now. But only when someone is up front and honest about things.

Also, hiring an ex-con as a landscaper or roofer or doctor or lawyer is a little different than putting someone on the supreme court for life. Really weak argument.

(10-01-2019 08:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought I made it abundantly clear that the issue isn't Trump pushing for a country to investigate corruption. It's that Trump inserted himself into a situation involving his main political opponent.

When you have a sensitive subject, you need to act sensitively.

Trump getting a pass on using his position to request the investigation of a political opponent means that there is no issue with him using his power to ask anyone else to investigate any of his opponents. All he has to say is "I think something is wrong" and boom, off to another investigation and abuse of power.

The line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is perfect for this situation.

So once again, this seems the complaint is about style rather than substance. I think your 'if he does this, it opens this other door' is wrong... Either Biden and the Ukrainians engaged in corruption or they didn't. Trump asking about it doesn't change what happened. At worst, this is Obama sicking the IRS on conservative groups... except this is at least a specific person and act (Biden Jr. in Ukraine) and not a general 'go find something on Democrats'.

Quote:I am glad that in your last sentence you recognize that the ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor that the Obama administration meant that it was more likely that Hunter's company would be investigated for real. Which means that Joe was almost certainly not trying to cover up for his son, as is being alleged and at the center of Trump's request.

Actually I didn't say this... someone else did and I went with it. I have no idea and neither do you and it doesn't matter to my point. Plenty of people shut doors after they've exploited them.

(10-01-2019 03:52 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  IANAL. I just don't understand why Trump would direct a foreign leader to deal with his personal lawyer when conducting super normal POTUS business.

I don't know either why he involved Guliani. You assume something nefarious. I don't, because nobody would make 'official' notes on nefarious acts. If he were this stupid, he would have been caught red handed long before.

Quote:Do you truly believe Trump is interested in fighting the political corruption of anyone besides those he perceives as his enemies? If I thought he was operating in good faith, I might not suggest they work on more important things.

That was actually my point. You don't think he's operating in good faith so you see everything from that lens. I just know that people who have made a career of engaging in shady behaviors are very good at covering their tracks... They wouldn't make a white house official note of doing nefarious things.

Whether he's interested in it or not, he campaigned and won on it... so did the Ukranian President... and they were talking about that topic specifically. If it was all 'show', all that does is prove that he knew he was being recorded... something he said almost immediately after the whistle blower claim was made public.

If Trump is basically a mob boss, you're not going to catch him through his office notes and 'known' recordings.

(10-01-2019 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

And Deborah Ramirez didn't testify and most of her corroborating witnesses were not even interviewed by the FBI. So that's a separate problem.

And I'm not trying to hold Kavanaugh's past behavior against him in any meaningful sense. I could easily be convinced that any screwups from ages 16-22 do not reflect on the kind of person he is now. But only when someone is up front and honest about things.

Also, hiring an ex-con as a landscaper or roofer or doctor or lawyer is a little different than putting someone on the supreme court for life. Really weak argument.

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.

Where was all this stuff when he nominated to the Circuit Court? Oh, yeah, then he wasn't Trump's nominee.

Kavanaugh is not an ex-con. The murderers and arsonists I hired were ex-cons.

Sounds like your choice is to hold youthful indiscretions against them for life, even ones not proven. MY thought is that let's judge not on what they did at 19 or 23, but the last thirty years.

I bet if we could get a TimeScope, we could disqualify most of your partners from holding public office. Maybe even you.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Now, if somebody who casts a stone has done equally bad or worse things, is that not hypocrisy? How do we know all the Democratic Senators are simon pure?

(10-01-2019 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events).

But if it didn’t happen, then he didn’t lie about it.

(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.

Sounds like your choice is to hold youthful indiscretions against them for life, even ones not proven. MY thought is that let's judge not on what they did at 19 or 23, but the last thirty years.

(10-01-2019 08:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But if it didn’t happen, then he didn’t lie about it.

I feel like you are both being intentionally obtuse. While I have some concerns over what happened 30 years ago, that isn't my big problem. My problem is that he lied and/or was highly misleading about his drinking and various slang terms while testifying under oath at a congressional hearing. I mean, I literally wrote:

(10-01-2019 06:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

On these topics, it wasn't really a he-said she-said situation. It was a whole bunch of people knowing that some slang terms mean one thing, and Brett Kavanaugh standing alone telling the world they meant something else. And it was pretty clear that he drank to extreme excess at times. Not even remotely disqualifying. But lying about it under oath is and I didn't hear anyone saying that he wasn't a heavy drinker and partier in high school & college.

Also, this is completely not the rabbit-hole that I wanted to go down. Its a tangent on a small point I was trying to make about hypocrisy. So I'm done, believe what you want. Just please believe the same thing when it happens to/with/about someone on the other side of the political spectrum.

(10-01-2019 10:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I feel like you are both being intentionally obtuse. While I have some concerns over what happened 30 years ago, that isn't my big problem. My problem is that he lied and/or was highly misleading about his drinking and various slang terms while testifying under oath at a congressional hearing. I mean, I literally wrote:
[quote='mrbig' pid='16339835' dateline='1569971991']
You seem to miss my entire point about Kavanaugh. The problem isn't that he (allegedly) drunkenly dropped trou/trow during a party and thrust his ***** at a young woman on at least 1 occasion. The problem is that he seems to have lied about it later and tried to mislead/minimize surrounding facts (such as drinking to the point that he might not remember events). No one should lie under oath, our entire system is built on the idea that one tells the truth and the whole truth when under oath. Having a nominee to the Supreme Court (and sitting federal circuit court judge) even toe the line of perjury blew my mind.

He either lied or he didn't. To prove that he lied you have to prove that 1) he said one thing, and 2) something else was true, and 3) his misstatement was intentional. I know what he said. I have not seen proof of 2), and without 2) there is no 3).

I guess you didn't drink as much beer as I did in college, Big, since there are a lot of nights, some weekends, several parties, and an entire trip to New Orleans I cannot remember.

Heck, there plenty of days I was sober 30+ years ago that I cannot remember.

So when a guy says he cannot remember what happened at a party, I can believe him. Especially if the party was 30 years ago.

And yes, that would be my attitude is the person was a Supreme Court nominee of President Warren. I might be suspicious that she was lying, but I could not definitively say she was.

One of my roomies forgot where he left his sailboat. Maybe he was lying and really did know where it is. But I don't think so. I never saw that sailboat again.

(10-02-2019 01:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you didn't drink as much beer as I did in college, Big, since there are a lot of nights, some weekends, several parties, and an entire trip to New Orleans I cannot remember.

Heck, there plenty of days I was sober 30+ years ago that I cannot remember.

So when a guy says he cannot remember what happened at a party, I can believe him. Especially if the party was 30 years ago.

But that's just the thing … you acknowledge that you sometimes drank too much, to the point where you couldn't remember some events. You don't go under oath and then deny that you never drank that much. You answer the question honestly and admit it. And life moves on, because lots of people have done that. But when a person, under oath, denies it, and a bunch of other people come forward and contradict you, it is problematic.

Whatever, he is on the Court. Let's all leave it. You seem to get my point on hypocrisy, even though you would rather argue about politically ancient and unimportant examples that I used.

(10-02-2019 02:34 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-02-2019 01:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you didn't drink as much beer as I did in college, Big, since there are a lot of nights, some weekends, several parties, and an entire trip to New Orleans I cannot remember.

Heck, there plenty of days I was sober 30+ years ago that I cannot remember.

So when a guy says he cannot remember what happened at a party, I can believe him. Especially if the party was 30 years ago.

But that's just the thing … you acknowledge that you sometimes drank too much, to the point where you couldn't remember some events. You don't go under oath and then deny that you never drank that much. You answer the question honestly and admit it. And life moves on, because lots of people have done that. But when a person, under oath, denies it, and a bunch of other people come forward and contradict you, it is problematic.

Whatever, he is on the Court. Let's all leave it. You seem to get my point on hypocrisy, even though you would rather argue about politically ancient and unimportant examples that I used.

Well, you used them, so I responded to them.

If the worst thing we can say about somebody is that he denies drinking too much 30 years ago, that is not bad.

I turned down political inquiries partially because I knew the Dems I would face would bring out my drinking and my drunken actions. I didn't want to endure a mini-Kavanaugh. Yet I bet many of them are as bad or worse. Thus the hypocrisy.

FTR, I quit drinking 30 years ago, and yet, there are many things in the past 30 years that I don't remember or that I remember differently from others. Memory is is a funny thing.

Yes, I certainly agree with the gist of of your point., and I am glad you made it. I just wish both sides did it more. Not enough putting oneself in the other's shoes, too much stereotype.

Didn't read this, but the headline caught my eye.

Quote:Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...on/598804/

There are things I don't remember at all from 30 years ago that have nothing to do with drinking. There are things I remember quite vividly. There are others that I remember in what feels like third person either from pictures or TV or sharing recollections with friends.

I don't think I would say 'I don't remember because I was too drunk' unless I actually remembered being too drunk that specific night.

Lot's of reasons for a person my age (close to his) to not remember specifics that didn't involve intoxication.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

House Republicans are demanding an “equal playing field” in the Democrat-led impeachment probe against President Trump after Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said ahead of Thursday’s scheduled testimony from former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker that GOP members of the Foreign Affairs Committee will not be permitted to ask questions or have equal representation during the hearing.

Is this fair?

(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.

(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.

I was talking to Big, but your answer makes total sense.

(10-03-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

House Republicans are demanding an “equal playing field” in the Democrat-led impeachment probe against President Trump after Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said ahead of Thursday’s scheduled testimony from former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker that GOP members of the Foreign Affairs Committee will not be permitted to ask questions or have equal representation during the hearing.

Is this fair?

Well, that lead doesn't quite explain the entire situation.

Quote:The lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote Wednesday evening: “I was alarmed to learn — less than 24 hours before the first interview is scheduled to start — that it will be led by the Intelligence Committee and that questioning will be done solely by their staff.”

“We were told that only a single Republican professional staffer from the Foreign Affairs Committee will be allowed to attend while the majority will have two,” Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the committee’s ranking member, continued. “These constraints on committee and Republican participation are unacceptable and at odds with House Rules and general fairness. We demand equal representation and participation in this inquiry, there is too much at stake for America and Congress.”

It looks like no elected official will be asking questions, just staff.

Not sure I quite understand how this questioning will work to come down on one side or the other. But I do think it makes no sense to intentionally exclude one party.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

Actually it was a confirmation hearing, not a job interview. He'd already been offered the job. This was more like submitting to the 'background check'.

If it were a job interview, why did they only interview one candidate?

And the presumption of innocence doesn't only apply in criminal cases. It's actually a very good practice for life.