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

[trim]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

and for that reason the world was laughing the the President at the UN. They think they own the world and progress is being made, when in reality, it isn't and the world knows it.  I was reading a piece awhile back, England ruled the world until WW2 ish and then got knocked off it's perch and then the US became this super power, now though it's become the laughing stock and how can you take the US seriously anymore? it's losing influence. The Church is kind of getting into this "America first" stuff, if something bad happens in other countries there is no counsel, something happens to the US then there is reaction as if the world is falling apart-take gay marriage for example. Where was the counsel for it when it became legal in other countries?  nothing. 

I have worked with Canadians for a number of years in my career and I have noticed that many of them have a subtle (sometimes not so subtle) anti-US attitude. I happen to be in Calgary this week and I have noticed the sentiments from a couple of conference speakers. For this reason, I take your comments with a grain of salt. You may want to relax your blanket insults.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I love how he used unethical sham or something like that cue Merrick Garland.....

here's a question, why can't the US pick somebody else? like are the republicans married to this Kavanaugh guy or is there nobody else they can pick?

You can disagree with how the Senate treated Judge Garland, and perhaps you have a point, but there was nothing unethical or sham-like about how the Senate treated Judge Garland.  Judge Garland is still on the bench in the D.C. Circuit, and, in contrast to that of Judge Kavanaugh.  his reputation remains intact.  Though that is how the process has evolved, there is nothing that requires the Senate to hold hearings on presidential nominees.  And the reason why President Trump doesn't simply nominate someone else is because there's no reason to expect that anyone who opposes Judge Kavanaugh would be any better disposed toward anyone else the president might happen to nominate.  Opponents of Judge Kavanaugh aren't simply going to throw out the playbook that worked so well against him: they will use it against whomever the president nominates for the seat.

[Maggard]

On 9/26/2018 at 11:29 AM, Gray said:

There was a supreme court nominee in the 80s who bowed out because it came to light that he smoked pot in college.

You keep confusing this process with a trial. Kavanaugh will not be incarcerated without due process. But there are credible accusations that he is a sexual predator, or used to be. We know for a fact that he is willing to lie under oath. He can't explain how he paid off $200k in debts right before his nomination. Any one of these things disqualifies him from the highest court in the land. A scandal-ridden justice cannot rule on matters of law with any credibility.

Actually none of those "disqualifies" one from serving on the Supreme Court, neither does zero judicial expedience.   Being worthy to be appointed is a horse of a different color.   The Supreme Court is the last defense of our Constitution. If appointed and found guilty, Congress can impeach him.  

[halconero]

15 minutes ago, Maggard said:

Actually none of those "disqualifies" one from serving on the Supreme Court, neither does zero judicial expedience.   Being worthy to be appointed is a horse of a different color.   The Supreme Court is the last defense of our Constitution. If appointed and found guilty, Congress can impeach him.  

True. Handling stolen documents from Senate Committees acquired during the Bush Jr. Administration probably would disqualify him though.

[halconero]

18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You can disagree with how the Senate treated Judge Garland, and perhaps you have a point, but there was nothing unethical or sham-like about how the Senate treated Judge Garland.  Judge Garland is still on the bench in the D.C. Circuit, and, in contrast to that of Judge Kavanaugh.  his reputation remains intact.  Though that is how the process has evolved, there is nothing that requires the Senate to hold hearings on presidential nominees.  And the reason why President Trump doesn't simply nominate someone else is because there's no reason to expect that anyone who opposes Judge Kavanaugh would be any better disposed toward anyone else the president might happen to nominate.  Opponents of Judge Kavanaugh aren't simply going to throw out the playbook that worked so well against him: they will use it against whomever the president nominates for the seat.

Gorusch got through fine.

[halconero]

25 minutes ago, trim said:

I have worked with Canadians for a number of years in my career and I have noticed that many of them have a subtle (sometimes not so subtle) anti-US attitude. I happen to be in Calgary this week and I have noticed the sentiments from a couple of conference speakers. For this reason, I take your comments with a grain of salt. You may want to relax your blanket insults.

As a Calgarian and a Canadian I take offense to your blanket characterization in response to Duncan’s blanket insults.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, Maggard said:

Actually none of those "disqualifies" one from serving on the Supreme Court, neither does zero judicial expedience.   Being worthy to be appointed is a horse of a different color.   The Supreme Court is the last defense of our Constitution. If appointed and found guilty, Congress can impeach him.  

Found guilty of what?  

[Bane]

I want to believe Kavanaugh.  I think he would be the best man for the job.

I'm perplexed by his calendar defense, though.  The entry on July 1, 1982 references all of the players (Judge, PJ) who are alleged to have been at a party at which the assault allegedly occurred.  The entry refers to 'skis at Timmy's.  Questioning by Senator Booker reveals that 'skis are brewskis.

Does the calendar really help Kavanaugh?

[Bane]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

But Senator Feinstein . . . leaked it to the press.

This is what I thought most likely also, after Senator Cruz pointed out the possibility. 

However, there's this denial by Ryan Grim of the Intercept:

"The Intercept Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim tweeted 'Feinstein's staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept.' He followed up with a tweet saying 'Nor did she or her staff leak the existence of the letter to The Intercept. After our story, she turned it over to the FBI, which placed it in his background file, which meant that it became widely available and soon after it was leaked to CNN.'"

www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-dianne-feinstein-says-she-staff-did-not-leak-christine-blasey-ford-story-today-2018-09-27/

[Calm]

5 hours ago, trim said:

I have worked with Canadians for a number of years in my career and I have noticed that many of them have a subtle (sometimes not so subtle) anti-US attitude. I happen to be in Calgary this week and I have noticed the sentiments from a couple of conference speakers. For this reason, I take your comments with a grain of salt. You may want to relax your blanket insults.

Canada has good reasons to be less than enthusiastic about the US speaking as a former Calgarian and American, imo.  It was embarrassing at times how clueless some Americans were in insisting of doing things their ways.  Playing multiple American patriotic songs on Canada Day year after year even after some members started to get up and walk out.  Businessmen and tourists who couldn't make the least effort to accommodate the local policies, currencies, etc.  Laws having to be written because US businesses would respect simple agreements not to flood Canada with American product below cost to establish footholds.

The fear and horror some people seem to have that letting immigrants into the US will somehow cause the loss of the American culture....and yet who is protesting about turning the entire world---by Hollywood, food franchises, American way of doing business or we won't do business---into one generic American wasteland while Americans do to other countries what they would never tolerate in their own?

Edited September 28, 2018 by Calm

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s my understanding that Ford decided not to come forward and requested Feinstein to hold the letter in confidence until very recently. Is this incorrect? Or do you think Feinstein should have ignored Ford’s expressed wishes?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article218542315.html

This is a highly intelligent woman and a psychologically and politically savvy one aware, as all of us are, of the torrent of leaks that is the normal state in Washington D.C. And I am sure that she is telling the truth when she told the other senator that she wished to remain anonymous. I am also sure that Senator Feinstein did not leak the contents of the letter, nor did she allow any of her staff to leak the contents of the letter. But it was leaked at a very opportune time, and of course a full investigation is underway to find the source of that leak and properly reward discipline him or her for so unfeelingly violating Doctor Ford's wishes and privacy. 😎

Glenn

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Bane said:

I want to believe Kavanaugh.  I think he would be the best man for the job.

I'm perplexed by his calendar defense, though.  The entry on July 1, 1982 references all of the players (Judge, PJ) who are alleged to have been at a party at which the assault allegedly occurred.  The entry refers to 'skis at Timmy's.  Questioning by Senator Booker reveals that 'skis are brewskis.

Does the calendar really help Kavanaugh?

When you look at his calendar defense, the people that you would expect to be there are the people that are there. Those are the friends that he has acknowledged and that acknowledged being his friends. The calendars also note some drinking (coded) which also has been admitted to. But no admission, no coded references to getting blasted. The names of Ford and Leland Keyser are conspicuously absent.

For those who consider an accusation as proof of guilt, no the calendar will not help him. Have you seen anyone opposed to Kavanaugh actually publicly consider any of the evidence that he has presented? have you read or heard any of those who were already opposed to him ever admit that Judge Kavanaugh has a lot of really credible character witnesses who corroborated his stories?

There have been no other credible accusers. Ramirez admits to being inebriated with memory gaps and spent six day massaging her memory to produce her story. Doctor Elizabeth Loftus would explain that so very easily. According to the reports it would seem that Swetnick had already graduated from high school and was in college during the time the things she alleges happened. A college student who watched high school gang rapes and never reported any of that??? And no one else remembers her. Strange tale, but sufficient to the day for those who want to bury Kavanaugh "by any means possible."

Kavanaugh's defense was put forward knowing in advance that most of the people in and out of congress would not be swayed. What it did was present a list of evidences that can be corroborated and have been corroborated against a witness whose story still has zero corroboration. It gave any of the Senators who are willing to look at the two sides and gauge the credibility of Judge Kavanaugh and the couple hundred of corroborating witnesses. In that vein, judging by the comments of some of the posters here who had some doubts but were reserving judgment, I think he succeeded. I think he succeeded with the members of Congress whose minds were not already made up, who were reserving judgement.

Glenn

Edited September 28, 2018 by Glenn101
spelling

[Glenn101]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Canada has good reasons to be less than enthusiastic about the US.

Canada are sort of like family members who grew up squabbling and carried that into adulthood, by age.

Glenn

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Maggard said:

Actually none of those "disqualifies" one from serving on the Supreme Court, neither does zero judicial expedience.   Being worthy to be appointed is a horse of a different color.   The Supreme Court is the last defense of our Constitution. If appointed and found guilty, Congress can impeach him.  

 

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Found guilty of what?  

Reposting this segment of the conversation, so it doesn't get lost.  Anyone who thinks the question is absurd on its face needs to think about it for awhile.  

[smac97]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

...

If you are demanding some sort of "kid glove" treatment of Ms. Swetnick, solely because she is a woman and Brett Kavanaugh is a man, I will not go along with that.

Again, I think society is getting tired of the "How dare you" schtick.  Women want to be on equal footing with men?  Great!  I agree!  So you can dispense with the guilt-mongering effort to put her claims above scrutiny or criticism.  It just doesn't work.  She put her claims out there for public consumption.  She doesn't get to say "Here are my claims, but don't you dare voice any skepticism about them, 'cuz 'this is why people do not report or talk about these things.'"

...

Again, this guilt-mongering "How dare you!" schtick just doesn't work anymore.  She has made public claims.  Those claims are open for scrutiny and analysis.  She doesn't get to avoid that scrutiny by hiding behind her gender.

In furtherance of the above remarks, this morning I came across this assessment of yesterday's hearings:

Quote

I caught only bits and pieces of Christine Ford’s testimony, and have seen some of the commentary on it. I watched Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement and portions of the questioning, including Lindsay Graham’s epic denunciation of the Democrats. That was enough, I think, to make an educated guess as to the hearing’s consequences.

The consensus of the commentariat is that Ford was “credible.” That isn’t surprising. Most witnesses are credible under friendly questioning, direct examination in a trial context. It usually takes cross-examination to expose a witness’s weaknesses. Today, the Republicans decided for political reasons not to go after Ford, which may well have been a good decision. But it virtually assured that she would be pronounced “credible.”

The more important question is whether her story is credible. To anyone who has paid attention, it isn’t. She cannot render a coherent account of the events that comprise her testimony. Most important, every one of the people she identifies as being present refutes her claims. And Ford’s position on some matters is indefensible; e.g., her claim not to know who paid for her polygraph exam (does she know who is paying her lawyers?), her alleged fear of flying, and so on.

Yep.  She was certainly sympathetic, and she seemed "credible" under friendly questioning (and without meaningful "cross-examination"-style scrutiny from the Republicans).

But the credibility of her story is, I think, another issue.

Quote

Brett Kavanaugh was also credible. His anger was obviously genuine, and his lengthy reminder of his long and honorable career was, I thought, persuasive. The Democrats had nothing on him; their harping on his high school yearbook was pathetic, and Amy Klobuchar’s attempt to insinuate that Kavanaugh has a drinking problem was reprehensible. 

Six FBI investigations.  Stellar record as an law clerk, attorney and judge over a period of decades.  Nary a single complaint from any female co-worker over his decades of professional work (as Sen. Graham put it in his remarks to Judge Kavanaugh: "You’re supposed to be Bill Cosby when you’re a junior and senior in high school, and all of a sudden you got over it. It’s been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don’t stop.").

Here's the key bit that pertains to my previous remarks:

Quote

So who won the day? I think it is important to keep in mind the audiences for whom today’s performance was enacted. There were two. The first is the public, or that portion of it that watched some of the hearing or will read and hear about it. The Democrats seem to think that “believe women” is a majority sentiment–regardless, apparently, of what the woman says, and subject to such exceptions as may be convenient. I doubt that is correct. I think a great many Americans have had it with #MeToo and associated abuses and can sympathize with a wrongly accused public figure. 

"A great many Americans have had it with #MeToo and associated abuses."

Yep.  Big time.

And what's worse, the people behind these abuses are fostering an environment of more skepticism about sexual abuse claims.  As if reporting abuse wasn't already hard enough, now legitimate victims may well end up with having to overcome the additional hurdle of being grouped in with phony, virtue-signalling yahoos who have demanded that we dispose of the presumption of innocence for men, that we privilege and immunize from scrutiny the say-so of women solely because of their gender, and so on.

This is not a healthy state of affairs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rivers]

There are four possibilities here:

-Ford is a liar.

-Ford is misremembering 

-Kavanaugh is a liar.

-Kavanaugh is misremembering.

Sadly for some people, “believe women” is the only option.  No critical thinking.  

 

[bsjkki]

Jeff Flake announced he is a “yes” for Kavanaugh. 

I do find it interesting there are four members of the CJCLDS on the judiciary committee. All are going to vote for Kavanaugh. That is statistically a lot of representation. I guess MWEG failed in their influence campaign. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/breaking-jeff-flake-says-hell-vote-to-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/

Edited September 28, 2018 by bsjkki

[Anijen]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

and further put sexually assaulted women back into the corners, where the Kavanaughs of the US put them

Alleged sexually assaulted women. Or do you have proof? Where you at the assault?

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Bane said:

I want to believe Kavanaugh.  I think he would be the best man for the job.

I'm perplexed by his calendar defense, though.  The entry on July 1, 1982 references all of the players (Judge, PJ) who are alleged to have been at a party at which the assault allegedly occurred.  The entry refers to 'skis at Timmy's.  Questioning by Senator Booker reveals that 'skis are brewskis.

Does the calendar really help Kavanaugh?

Very interesting, didn't know that. Why didn't they question the place of Timmy's or who Timmy is? And why wouldn't Kavanaugh want his friend Mark Judge, to testify and exonerate him? Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Alleged sexually assaulted women. Or do you have proof? Where you at the assault?

it's a general statement, people that get assaulted and will get assaulted form here on in, I worry for them if he gets in but we'll see what happens

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Canada has good reasons to be less than enthusiastic about the US speaking as a former Calgarian and American, imo.  It was embarrassing at times how clueless some Americans were in insisting of doing things their ways.  Playing multiple American patriotic songs on Canada Day year after year even after some members started to get up and walk out.  Businessmen and tourists who couldn't make the least effort to accommodate the local policies, currencies, etc.  Laws having to be written because US businesses would respect simple agreements not to flood Canada with American product below cost to establish footholds.

The fear and horror some people seem to have that letting immigrants into the US will somehow cause the loss of the American culture....and yet who is protesting about turning the entire world---by Hollywood, food franchises, American way of doing business or we won't do business---into one generic American wasteland while Americans do to other countries what they would never tolerate in their own?

Thanks Calm, I have sat in a classroom day after day with children learning a song that America is the best nation in the world. I hope I'm not unAmerican if I don't agree. But think we are close but no cigar. It turned my insides while the teacher taught the children to think it was the best out there, and she not mention that other countries are as well. Almost turning them into elitists. But it might be a LDS thing, don't know, or a Utah thing.

[Anijen]

8 hours ago, Maggard said:

Actually none of those "disqualifies" one from serving on the Supreme Court, neither does zero judicial expedience.   Being worthy to be appointed is a horse of a different color.   The Supreme Court is the last defense of our Constitution. If appointed and found guilty, Congress can impeach him.  

You don't even have to be a lawyer, gone to law school, or pass the bar to be a justice on SCOTUS. However, IMO, I would prefer a law expert when deciding cases, (my own personal thought on the matter).

I also would like to see a justice on SCOTUS who is not a Yale or Harvard grad. It has been too long.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In furtherance of the above remarks, this morning I came across this assessment of yesterday's hearings:

Glad to see you still in the thread. Still waiting in my CFR or retraction. I believe the board rules state you need to substantiate your claim (that I said anything like women can never be questioned) or withdraw it. Thanks

 

[Duncan]

Just now, Anijen said:

You don't even have to be a lawyer, gone to law school, or pass the bar to be a justice on SCOTUS. However, IMO, I would prefer a law expert when deciding cases, (my own personal thought on the matter).

I also would like to see a justice on SCOTUS who is not a Yale or Harvard grad. It has been too long.

you don't need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court? what is the rational for that? 

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Yes I think everyone should watch him. Here is a link to his opening statement. I found it compelling. https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-opening-statement-senate-hearing-vpx.cnn

I watched both his and Ford's. Part of me wants to watch the questioning for him as some of the clips that are shown shows some of his righteous indignation leading to stumbling for words with what should be simple questions about alcohol and I want to know the context. I found it rage oriented and focused on politics rather than the problem at hand and his current hurts. I wasn't as compelled by it as Ford's. Partially because I've seen people in the wrong about big things do the exact same thing. Of course all he can say (whether he did it or not) is "I didn't do it." But I'm more likely to believe Ford's story because it was clear, consistent, and I understand how trauma works. Though certain details are likely to fade or change, especially if they're not emotionally laced, about the experience....several others wouldn't. The face of the perpetrator is one of them. She's likely to never forget that and the sound of his laugh ever again, due to what those represent for her (rape and near death). 

To be clear though, my bias is to believe the accuser in sexual assault allegations. They're usually the ones telling the truth.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 28, 2018 by BlueDreams