Mormon Women's Group Call on LDS Senators to Investigate Allegations Against Kavanaugh

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately this doesn't say if this is typical or unusual when drunk:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201508/why-you-cannot-remember-what-you-did-while-you-were-drunk

Memory loss with Binge drinking (which kegs suggest) is not uncommon, apparently:

https://www.drugrehab.com/addiction/alcohol/blackouts/

 

So maybe he doesn't remember he was black out drunk. I've been reading everything I can find on all this...it's been interesting. 

[Anijen]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Well, again he says this keg comment and in his yearbook but he says he was never blacked out drunk that he couldn't remember the night before,

You have become very talented at selective reading. You want him to have said a certain thing and you make connections that are not there to say he said, what he really didn't say. His yearbook comment no way implies he has ever been so drunk that he cannot remember.

 

Quote

how would he know if he was drunk by his own admission?

Most people know if they are drunk. I've did lots of DUI's were people say they were drunk and also were they were drunk but claim they were not. However, one knows if he were so drunk to the point of not remembering. They know this because they cant remember the night before. Kavanaugh specifically denies ever being that drunk.

 

Quote

to me he lied.  Look at his demeanor, he's stoic but you can tell he wants to cry, either from innocence or his past is coming back to haunt him.

 Becoming emotional after being vilified and having death threats to oneself or your family does not, in no way, make one a rapist or even close. You are again reading into this what you want to see. Frankly judging Kavanaugh a rapist by his "demeanor" in this interview is shocking. I hardly ever cry, but I remember being close to tears while being unfairly judged at work. By your logic this makes it ok to label me a rapist (because my past supposedly came back to haunt me) and I certainly know I never ever assaulted anyone sexually or in any other manner.. Really?

[Duncan]

39 minutes ago, Anijen said:

You have become very talented at selective reading. You want him to have said a certain thing and you make connections that are not there to say he said, what he really didn't say. His yearbook comment no way implies he has ever been so drunk that he cannot remember.

 

Most people know if they are drunk. I've did lots of DUI's were people say they were drunk and also were they were drunk but claim they were not. However, one knows if he were so drunk to the point of not remembering. They know this because they cant remember the night before. Kavanaugh specifically denies ever being that drunk.

 

 Becoming emotional after being vilified and having death threats to oneself or your family does not, in no way, make one a rapist or even close. You are again reading into this what you want to see. Frankly judging Kavanaugh a rapist by his "demeanor" in this interview is shocking. I hardly ever cry, but I remember being close to tears while being unfairly judged at work. By your logic this makes it ok to label me a rapist (because my past supposedly came back to haunt me) and I certainly know I never ever assaulted anyone sexually or in any other manner.. Really?

it's not reading it's hearing the interview. I am only going on what he has said and used his own words, I haven't made up quotations and even provided the source from where I got it all. If I am to be accused to "selective reading" then blame Kavanaugh

 I guess the question is what do you remember when you were drunk? and everybody is different

His own conflicted stoicism is telling to me and I wasn't implying you are a rapist by how you react, because I am going to put it out there you have not been accused of this stuff. he can lie all he wants but he isn't fooling people, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

on an unrelated note where is Mark Judge in all this? he seems to have the inside scoop, he can shed light one way or the other

Edited September 27, 2018 by Duncan

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, alter idem said:

To 'move slowly' sounds reasonable right?  But there is motive on their part.  This is a delay tactic to push Kavanaugh's confirmation vote until after the midterm election. Democrats are hoping they will gain the majority in the Senate and can then vote him down.     This information was kept until the last minute precisely so that it could be used to delay the confirmation--if they were not able to get the votes to vote him down.  This group is supporting the efforts of the democrats to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme court and they are being true to their reason for organizing--to impede Pres. Trump from being able to govern the nation.

I would agree that the Democrats would like the vote postponed until after the elections.  But that does not discount that fact that there are some serious allegations against Kavanaugh that should be investigated.  BTW, were you this incensed when the Republicans refused to even speak with Obama's supreme court nomination for a whole year? 

[Glenn101]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's not reading it's hearing the interview. I am only going on what he has said and used his own words, I haven't made up quotations and even provided the source from where I got it all. If I am to be accused to "selective reading" then blame Kavanaugh

 I guess the question is what do you remember when you were drunk? and everybody is diffe

This is interesting. You see a man with conflicted stoicism. I see a very emotional man working hard to keep himself under control. And after watching the interview, I cannot see where he lied. He did not deny ever drinking. But he did deny getting drunk enough to black out. I have no personal experience with the latter, but during my time in the Navy I dealt with it on many occasions as most of my friends were into heavy drinking when we would pull into a port. It was not unusual for one of the people in my division to come back to the ship stoned to the gills and not be able to remember anything the night before. Everyone of them knew they had been drinking but had memory gaps.

I had one friend who took off to New York City one weekend. He went out drinking. The next thing he remembers is being awakened by someone down in the street playing a radio extremely loudly. He had this terrific headache also and then discovered he was in bed with a woman. He had no idea how he had got there (in a hotel room) or who the woman was or what they had done, or not done. When he opened the window to yell at the person playing the radio he saw that the noise was coming from his own car. The doors had been left open. My friend quietly got himself dressed and departed for Fort Monmouth as quickly as he could.

The bottom line is that everyone that I have had experience with that drank remembered getting drunk. They did have memory gaps such as with the Ramirez woman or totally blacked out and did not remember anything after some point in time.

However, Judge Kavanaugh denies drinking to the point of blacking out, having memory lapses, etc. and the people who knew him said that was not in character for him. This has turned ugly really fast. It seems that a lot of people are totally disregarding the remarks of anyone who knows Judge Kavanaugh and stands in support of him but favor of reports that as of now have no corroboration.

Glenn

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

His own conflicted stoicism is telling to me and I wasn't implying you are a rapist by how you react,

Yes, you kind of are doing just that. remember you stated;

Quote

to me he lied.  Look at his demeanor

demeanor is your look your appearance,  and again you make the unsubstantiated connection that he lied and you could tell he lied just from his demeanor.

Quote

His own conflicted stoicism

Here, again, you state what you want to hear, e.g "his own conflicted... " This is precisely what I mean, you see and make the connection he is conflicted. Yes he is being stoic but what is stoicism?  It is showing endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings or complaint. Stoicism then could arguably be an an antonym of demeanor.  However, him being conflicted is what you want to see.  I see stoicism, I do not see confliction.

 

Quote

he can lie all he wants but he isn't fooling people

Evidently he is fooling someone, either me for not rushing to judge him (by his demeanor) or you by stating he is a liar and thus implying he is a rapist. For example in the interview he denied ever sexually assaulting Blassy-Ford or ever assaulting anyone. By saying he is a liar you are implying he sexaully assaulted her.

 

Quote

 I haven't made up quotations and even provided the source from where I got it all.

I never said you made up quotations, I said you are making connections to his quotes that are simply not there. For example, you tell me he lied by claiming he never was drunk (and gave me the source of the 12:37 mark). When the answer to the question was he never drank to the level of forgetting all that happened the night before.  You made a connection that implied he lied saying he never was drunk.

 

Quote

I wasn't implying you are a rapist by how you react, because I am going to put it out there you have not been accused of this stuff

I know you were not imply that I am a rapist (and I am thankful for that), but you were implying that Kavanagh was by his demeanor, or in other words how one reacts (him almost crying) to a given situation (i.e. his demeanor). You said he lied and you can tell by his demeanor ("he lied.  Look at his demeanor"). What did he lie about? He lied about him ever sexually assaulting her (because you can tell truth from lies by ones demeanor). Conclusion: when I was almost brought to tears when wrongfully accused at work, by your lie detector system of reading ones demeanor I could be lying of a sexuall assault allegation because I almost was brought to tears. Again I know you were not implying this, I am just saying it is the same process you used on Kavanaugh.

 

It is simply a political stratagem to delay the nomination. Prove it is not a political ploy by having the vote (a simple solution), yet continue the investigation, even put him on trial if the evidence warrants it. If he is found guilty, then impeach the pig and put him in prison. This is a fair for both Kavanaugh and Blassey-Ford. 

Sixth Amendment is relevant here as well.

[bsjkki]

27 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I would agree that the Democrats would like the vote postponed until after the elections.  But that does not discount that fact that there are some serious allegations against Kavanaugh that should be investigated.  BTW, were you this incensed when the Republicans refused to even speak with Obama's supreme court nomination for a whole year? 

So, in the future, do you believe this same standard of evidence or accusation should slow down or derail all future nominees? As far as your questions about Merrick Garland goes, what I do know is, if the Democrats had the same opportunity, they would have done the same thing. Most Republicans thought it to be a futile exercise anyway because Hillary was supposed to win. Almost everyone and all the polls said Trump was going to lose. The Supreme court nomination may have been one of the main reasons Trump won. Many Republicans could have reluctantly voted for Trump because of that Supreme Court nomination. What this proves to me is our country is divided and the courts and judges have become politicized. If the Supreme Court functioned as intended, it would not matter which president nominated which judge. The courts have become politicized and that is sad.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, alter idem said:

 

They can nominate someone else but what makes you think they won't do the same thing to that person?  It's so easy to destroy a person when you've got the support of the media to trumpet these unsubstantiated allegations and totally undermine the process.

And, forcing the Republican to pull him is exactly what his accusers/critics want!  The whole purpose is to force Kavanaugh to withdraw his name or for Pres. Trump to withdraw the nomination.  What you are suggesting is what the Democrats want.  For that reason alone, I think he should see this through to the bitter end.  They've already destroyed his reputation and his good name.  There will be no criminal charges against him because there's nothing to charge him with, there's no evidence and no witnesses.  But his reputation will be ruined and his ability to go back to being a judge will also be damaged beyond repair.

 

If Kavanaugh withdraws they win (they wanted this delayed until after the midterm elections) and they will be emboldened to do this every time and with every nominee the Pres. puts forward.  As Kenngo said, they could continue this into 2020 easily.  All they have to do is delay and destroy into Pres. Trump's third year and then they can evoke the 'Thurmond rule'.  They are confident they can win the presidency in 2020 and then appoint their own choice to the supreme court.

"They"?

I love how the automatic assumption is that these women can be just scooped up and willingly agree to make lies up and ruin their own lives on command. It is a conspiracy I TELL YOU!!!!

Believe me if there were a pool of fake accusers available Ted Cruz and Donald Trump would each have hundreds of them by now and the Republicans would be countering with their own.

There is no such pool.

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"They"?

I love how the automatic assumption is that these women can be just scooped up and willingly agree to make lies up and ruin their own lives on command. It is a conspiracy I TELL YOU!!!!

Believe me if there were a pool of fake accusers available Ted Cruz and Donald Trump would each have hundreds of them by now and the Republicans would be countering with their own.

There is no such pool.

So you believe Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey?

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Anijen said:

Yes, you kind of are doing just that. remember you stated;

demeanor is your look your appearance,  and again you make the unsubstantiated connection that he lied and you could tell he lied just from his demeanor.

Here, again, you state what you want to hear, e.g "his own conflicted... " This is precisely what I mean, you see and make the connection he is conflicted. Yes he is being stoic but what is stoicism?  It is showing endurance of pain or hardship without a display of feelings or complaint. Stoicism then could arguably be an an antonym of demeanor.  However, him being conflicted is what you want to see.  I see stoicism, I do not see confliction.

 

Evidently he is fooling someone, either me for not rushing to judge him (by his demeanor) or you by stating he is a liar and thus implying he is a rapist. For example in the interview he denied ever sexually assaulting Blassy-Ford or ever assaulting anyone. By saying he is a liar you are implying he sexaully assaulted her.

 

I never said you made up quotations, I said you are making connections to his quotes that are simply not there. For example, you tell me he lied by claiming he never was drunk (and gave me the source of the 12:37 mark). When the answer to the question was he never drank to the level of forgetting all that happened the night before.  You made a connection that implied he lied saying he never was drunk.

 

I know you were not imply that I am a rapist (and I am thankful for that), but you were implying that Kavanagh was by his demeanor, or in other words how one reacts (him almost crying) to a given situation (i.e. his demeanor). You said he lied and you can tell by his demeanor ("he lied.  Look at his demeanor"). What did he lie about? He lied about him ever sexually assaulting her (because you can tell truth from lies by ones demeanor). Conclusion: when I was almost brought to tears when wrongfully accused at work, by your lie detector system of reading ones demeanor I could be lying of a sexuall assault allegation because I almost was brought to tears. Again I know you were not implying this, I am just saying it is the same process you used on Kavanaugh.

 

It is simply a political stratagem to delay the nomination. Prove it is not a political ploy by having the vote (a simple solution), yet continue the investigation, even put him on trial if the evidence warrants it. If he is found guilty, then impeach the pig and put him in prison. This is a fair for both Kavanaugh and Blassey-Ford. 

Sixth Amendment is relevant here as well.

I have never read the US Constitution or it's amendments so I can't speak to that and the only USA thing I am doing today is eating KFC for lunch😋 I think at this point with his hearing on  we'll defer to what happens and see what unfolds

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

This is interesting. You see a man with conflicted stoicism. I see a very emotional man working hard to keep himself under control. And after watching the interview, I cannot see where he lied. He did not deny ever drinking. But he did deny getting drunk enough to black out. I have no personal experience with the latter, but during my time in the Navy I dealt with it on many occasions as most of my friends were into heavy drinking when we would pull into a port. It was not unusual for one of the people in my division to come back to the ship stoned to the gills and not be able to remember anything the night before. Everyone of them knew they had been drinking but had memory gaps.

I had one friend who took off to New York City one weekend. He went out drinking. The next thing he remembers is being awakened by someone down in the street playing a radio extremely loudly. He had this terrific headache also and then discovered he was in bed with a woman. He had no idea how he had got there (in a hotel room) or who the woman was or what they had done, or not done. When he opened the window to yell at the person playing the radio he saw that the noise was coming from his own car. The doors had been left open. My friend quietly got himself dressed and departed for Fort Monmouth as quickly as he could.

The bottom line is that everyone that I have had experience with that drank remembered getting drunk. They did have memory gaps such as with the Ramirez woman or totally blacked out and did not remember anything after some point in time.

However, Judge Kavanaugh denies drinking to the point of blacking out, having memory lapses, etc. and the people who knew him said that was not in character for him. This has turned ugly really fast. It seems that a lot of people are totally disregarding the remarks of anyone who knows Judge Kavanaugh and stands in support of him but favor of reports that as of now have no corroboration.

Glenn

I can't speak to the US Navy but I did watch an episode of McHale's Navy once or twice with the lovable Mr. Tim Conway

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

I can't speak to the US Navy but I did watch an episode of McHale's Navy once or twice with the lovable Mr. Tim Conway

I spent twenty years looking for Mchale's Navy. Heard stories about it (similar tales) but never could get there. Tim Conway was an absolute riot as a comedian.  He could break up even his fellow comedians.

 

[Glenn101]

It is being reported that two men have come forward claiming that they wre the ones that attacked Doctor Ford. This tale is getting really strange.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/

Glenn

[Gray]

13 hours ago, alter idem said:

Once again, this info. about 'corroborating witnesses' has been reported in such a way as to mislead the public and it's apparently working.  The 'witnesses' are only corroborating that she told them this story before this summer when she brought her allegations to Feinstein.   Isn't that called 'hearsay' and isn't even allowed as evidence?  They can't say her 'claims are good faith' because they were not present at the event, they did not know Kavanaugh,  they cannot corroborate that she's telling the truth about an assault by Kavanaugh or anyone else-- they can only say that she told them some general things about once being assaulted and this telling was a couple of years ago.  It's still her word against his (he's denied it) and no one else remembers what she's claiming.

Maybe she traveled forward time to find out that Kavanaugh was getting the nomination. Then, in a modified Delorean, she returned to her present time and started telling her therapist, husband and friends about when Kavanaugh and his shady friend tried to rape her.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Kavanaugh is damaged goods.  He may be innocent of these allegations but he will never be able to convince the public at large of it and his legacy on the court would be tainted his whole life.  He should just step aside and let Trump appoint another judge.  They could still get this judge approved before January.  People make a big deal about the elections but even if the Democrats take the Senate, they still would have to wait until January to get power.  The Republicans can still get another judge in before the clock runs out.  

The fact that they haven't done so already says that they want Kavanaugh for reasons other than just the fact that he's conservative. Those gambling debts didn't pay themselves off.

[mnn727]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

does the US penalize it in some way? It seem the republicans treat their own President and sexual assault with a who cares attitude

Ever hear of Bill Clinton? LBJ? JFK?

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 Out of the blue, an individual that you do not know and have no memory of having ever met under any circumstance comes forward and states that you ATTEMPTED to do something wrong. You did not actually do anything, but you THOUGHT about it. 

That's not relevant here because it does not describe what these women are stating took place.  He is being accused of DOING something (not just thinking about it).  If they are telling the truth, he sexually assaulted one of the women and was present when another was gang raped.

I'm keeping an open mind and I'm very interested to watch these women testify.  I was not impressed with Kavanaugh when I watched him interviewed on Fox and I didn't feel he was being truthful (claiming he spent his school days doing service projects and studying).  He could have done some drinking and partying and still absolutely never done any of the things he's being accused of doing.  That's much more realistic than what he's trying to portray, IMO.  It'll be interesting to watch.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not relevant here because it does not describe what these women are stating took place.  He is being accused of DOING something (not just thinking about it).  If they are telling the truth, he sexually assaulted one of the women and was present when another was gang raped.

I'm keeping an open mind and I'm very interested to watch these women testify.  I was not impressed with Kavanaugh when I watched him interviewed on Fox and I didn't feel he was being truthful (claiming he spent his school days doing service projects and studying).  He could have done some drinking and partying and still absolutely never done any of the things he's being accused of doing.  That's much more realistic than what he's trying to portray, IMO.  It'll be interesting to watch.

I don’t understand...he has admitted to drinking and partying.

link to judiciary transcripts

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-releases-transcripts-of-kavanaugh-interviews

Fox News interview https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.531707cb8a4a

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651940992/read-brett-kavanaughs-opening-statement-for-senate-hearing

” I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now.”

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by bsjkki

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I don’t understand...he has admitted to drinking and partying.

Not that I saw in the interview (I wasn't able to watch all of it....so maybe I missed that).  What I heard him answer with was that he spent his days in high school involved in service projects, and home studying (and did not go out drinking or partying).  I'm glad if he stated what you say he has admitted to.  Thanks.

But, I definitely was not impressed with him in the interview.  Others may feel differently, of course.

ETA:

Here's what I heard him state when asked about the parties in High School:

Quote

 

In an interview with Fox News, Kavanaugh all but denied even participating in the raucous party culture of elite private schools he attended. Instead, he portrayed himself as dutiful and devout.

"I went to an all-boys Catholic high school," explained Kavanaugh, now a federal appeals court judge. "I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship – friendship with my fellow classmates, and friendship with the girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools."

 

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It is being reported that two men have come forward claiming that they wre the ones that attacked Doctor Ford. This tale is getting really strange.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/

Glenn

That is the strangest thing I've ever read.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That is the strangest thing I've ever read.

I agree. I think I will coin the phrase "11th Hour Kabuki Theater."

That about sums things up.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is why people do not report or talk about these things. You realize this right? 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Ever hear of Bill Clinton? LBJ? JFK?

did they play for the Packers?

[alter idem]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It is being reported that two men have come forward claiming that they wre the ones that attacked Doctor Ford. This tale is getting really strange.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/

Glenn

This makes complete sense.  This happened a long time ago and Ford has misremembered who was involved.  It makes sense because Kavanaugh said he and Ford didn't run in the same social circles and he didn't understand why she accused him of this, but she was likely drunk at the time.  Kavanaugh went on to make a name for himself, so his name came to her when she was trying to put together hazy memories from her past.

I just wonder what those who have already condemned Kavanaugh will think of this.  Will they dismiss this, thinking these men are simply trying to save Kavanaugh--but at the same time they won't consider that Ford and the others made these allegations because they don't want a pro-life judge on the Sumpreme court, for fear that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

 

I think this political destruction of Kavanaugh is fueled by their desire to protect abortion and to stick it to Pres. Trump.