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

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, PacMan said:

No.  LDS senators have a responsibility for the institutional integrity of the system and upholding the constitution.  The allegations are serious.  But just as in criminal law, there needs to be a type of 'statutes of limitations' for these types of allegations during the nominating process.  There needs to be a cutoff point for these 11th hour allegations.  It is too easy to turn these nominations into a circus.  And to the extent that these self-proclaimed Mormon women (or anyone else) want something contrary to a sensible and sustainable process, they should be ignored.

So calls to 'go slowly' is contrary to a sensible and sustainable process?  Is that what you are saying?

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Do you realize the precedent which is set when unsubstantiated allegations (these three accusers are all bringing forward allegations with no evidence to support their claims) are allowed to destroy a person's character, their reputations and opportunities?  Is this the world you want to live in?  What if someone makes an accusation against you and there is no evidence to support it, should the community believe the accuser because they've made an accusation--regardless of no evidence?  This is not how it used to be done in America, but I'm afraid that is the way we are headed.  We are headed down a dangerous road.

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.

[Storm Rider]

I just spent some time going over this group's website. Looks like they have been issuing some form of communication since Feb 2017.  It is worth spending some time reviewing their site and looking at their official announcements. They state they are non-partisan but their positions do seem to follow closely the positions of one political party. 

I could not find out how they got their funding.

They do seem to have very qualified individuals affiliated with the organization. 

[Exiled]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

his friends, yearbook, that wasted: tales of gen X bart thing, his interviews he doesn't really answer the questions. FWIW though I can't wait for all this to blow over! it would be nice if their was an investigation of some kind, why sit down for Fox news and not the FBI?

Testifying before congress is also a way to find out the truth and Ms. Ford is very hesitant to do so. She had to have known that she would be called to testify a la Anita Hill when she wrote the letter to Feinstein in July, who incidentally sat on it until it was leaked at the last minute. 

In any event, we should hear from the accuser and Mr. Kavanaugh should have a chance to respond. It seems to be a he said she said, so go before congress already and let's hear what she has to say. Until then, with all the questions surrounding her story, we simply can't declare guilt at this point.

[Storm Rider]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

A new sworn affidavit from another witness:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-michael-avenatti-reveals-julie-swetnick-today-2018-09-26/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I supposed to be swayed by this tripe?  Boys spiked the punch with "drugs and/or grain alcohol"?  Which is it? How do you know?  The person states that this was done "so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions". Really? Not boys to lose their inhibitions, but just girls? How did she know what their motivations were? Here is a clue - she does not jack dip about what anyone else was doing unless those individuals told her specifically why they were doing something. 

Oh, come on. Give me something real rather than this type of claptrap stupidity. This type of screed just ticks me off. She says nothing of value, but she smears the reputations of others all the same. 

Yep, I strongly support if a person is caught lying about these types of allegations against others that their punishment is immediately going to jail for no less than 60 years without any option of parole. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

If I was an 'LDS' senator, I'd research this organization and look to see where they get their funding and who are the principle organizers--that will tell a lot about their motives and what they REALLY want out of this action on their part.  THEN I would determine how to respond.  

I'm not sure what the group's funding has to really do with their request though.  Regardless of their motives, all they've asked for is that the senators move slowly.  That seems like a reasonable thing to do regardless of who asks that it be done.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Am I supposed to be swayed by this tripe?  Boys spiked the punch with "drugs and/or grain alcohol"?  Which is it? How do you know?  The person states that this was done "so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions". Really? Not boys to lose their inhibitions, but just girls? How did she know what their motivations were? Here is a clue - she does not jack dip about what anyone else was doing unless those individuals told her specifically why they were doing something. 

Oh, come on. Give me something real rather than this type of claptrap stupidity. This type of screed just ticks me off. She says nothing of value, but she smears the reputations of others all the same. 

Yep, I strongly support if a person is caught lying about these types of allegations against others that their punishment is immediately going to jail for no less than 60 years without any option of parole. 

do you mean a calendar from 1982? would that clear you from guilt? nope, no crimes to do today!

[PacMan]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So calls to 'go slowly' is contrary to a sensible and sustainable process?  Is that what you are saying?

If the call for "go slowly" comes months after the allegations should have been investigated and is calculated to prejudice the constitutional process to appoint a SCOTUS justice right before the terms starts, then yes--it is contrary to a sensible and sustainable process.  That is absolutely what I am saying.

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I looked up the group and found out information on them;

 

https://www.standard.net/lifestyle/faith/mormon-women-s-group-dives-into-civic-engagement-in-wake/article_a3c334e8-cc9d-5be2-b267-9d33bcb9aff7.html

 

This group was organized as a reaction against Donald Trump winning the presidency.  Their efforts are directed at opposing him, so it's not surprising that they've taken up this cause.

 

I'm not sure how you can try to keep this non-political when this whole thing is  so obviously politically driven.

I agree that it can be difficult to separate moral beliefs from political beliefs, but I think it can be done if we try.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, PacMan said:

If the call for "go slowly" comes months after the allegations should have been investigated and is calculated to prejudice the constitutional process to appoint a SCOTUS justice right before the terms starts, then yes--it is contrary to a sensible and sustainable process.  That is absolutely what I am saying.

I thought that the allegations are in the process of being investigated.  Did the investigation actually conclude months ago?

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Am I supposed to be swayed by this tripe?  Boys spiked the punch with "drugs and/or grain alcohol"?  Which is it? How do you know?  The person states that this was done "so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions". Really? Not boys to lose their inhibitions, but just girls? How did she know what their motivations were? Here is a clue - she does not jack dip about what anyone else was doing unless those individuals told her specifically why they were doing something. 

Oh, come on. Give me something real rather than this type of claptrap stupidity. This type of screed just ticks me off. She says nothing of value, but she smears the reputations of others all the same. 

Yep, I strongly support if a person is caught lying about these types of allegations against others that their punishment is immediately going to jail for no less than 60 years without any option of parole.  

Wow.

[Kenngo1969]

If Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is problematic because senators deem the allegations against him to be credible, then the Senate Judiciary Committee should do what it does with any other problematic nomination: A majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee should vote against forwarding the nomination to the full Senate.  Failing that, the Senate should vote against confirming Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States Supreme Court.  It is very unlikely that local authorities will investigate the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh because the statutes of limitations of any alleged crimes long since have run.  It is very unlikely that the Federal Bureau of Investigation will investigate the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh because the crimes alleged are not within its jurisdiction.  In any case, as others have pointed out, Judge Kavanaugh has undergone six prior FBI background checks in connection with previous federal service, none of which found any misconduct of the sort being alleged here.  (Arguably, such background checks aren't designed to find misconduct of the sort being alleged here.) 

As then-Senator Joe Biden so astutely and pointedly reminded his colleagues (separating every single syllable he uttered for emphasis) during the confirmation hearings for then-Judge Clarence Thomas when those colleagues pointed out that the FBI found no wrongdoing on then-Judge Thomas's part, "The F-B-I draws no con-clu-sions!  Per-I-od!"   Ironically, however, apparently, former Vice-President Biden now is among those urging that the FBI investigate Judge Kavanaugh (again!). Why?  "Be-cause we need to de-lay this no-mi-na-tion for as long as poss-i-ble!  Per-I-od!"

For more of my thoughts on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, see here: 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/of-s-ct-nominees-11th-hour-surprises/

See also here:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2018/09/26/of-supreme-court-nominees-11th-hour-surprises-revisited/

On why people should not be convicted in the court of public opinion, see here:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/ethics-of-zealous-defense-ii/.

Thanks,

-Ken

[bluebell]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

If Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is problematic because senators deem the allegations against him to be credible, then the Senate Judiciary Committee should do what it does with any other problematic nomination: A majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee should vote against forwarding the nomination to the full Senate.  Failing that, the Senate should vote against confirming Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States Supreme Court. 

I think the bigger problem seems to be that whether or not someone believes the allegations to be credible almost completely falls along party lines.  There is very little unbiased thought going on.

[Kenngo1969]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what the group's funding has to really do with their request though.  Regardless of their motives, all they've asked for is that the senators move slowly.  That seems like a reasonable thing to do regardless of who asks that it be done.

It depends on the motives underlying the request.  Democrats hope to retake the Senate in this year's midterm elections.  If they do, there's a strong likelihood that no one will be confirmed to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court before January 2020, at the earliest.  Make no mistake: That's precisely why so many people are urging that Judge Kavanaugh be investigated (again!) and that his nomination be slow-walked.  That's also at least part of the reason why Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) sat on the letter from Judge Kavanaugh's first accuser for months rather than bringing it immediately to the Senate Judiciary Committee's attention.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Walden]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It depends on the motives underlying the request.  Democrats hope to retake the Senate in this year's midterm elections.  If they do, there's a strong likelihood that no one will be confirmed to fill any vacancies on the Supreme Court before January 2020, at the earliest.  Make no mistake: That's precisely why so many people are urging that Judge Kavanaugh be investigated (again!) and that his nomination be slow-walked.

Yes, both parties play games with the Supreme Court nomination process...the GOP wouldn't even allow Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court to be vetted, instead pushing it off/slow-walking it until they could get their own President in office.

Because the SCOTUS bench has been so politicized by both parties, I would think it in the best interest of the country as a whole to rescind the lifelong appointment of SCOTUS judges; make it a 12-year or 16-year appointment instead. 

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/

 

Kavanaugh has lied under oath repeatedly.

http://bwcentral.org/2018/09/stunning-all-four-witnesses-deny-christine-fords-story-and-all-four-witnesses-deny-party-ever-took-place/

The 4 women deny any wrongdoing. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/4th-purported-witness-claims-no-knowledge-alleged-kavanaugh-assault-against-ford.html

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the bigger problem seems to be that whether or not someone believes the allegations to be credible almost completely falls along party lines.  There is very little unbiased thought going on.

I think politics is inevitable in this situation. Also, late recollections and a lack of a contemporaneous reporting are always problematic as happened here. Even so, she should agree to go before congress and publicly make the allegation. Also, let Kavanaugh respond publicly as well and then let's move on.

[snowflake]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the bigger problem seems to be that whether or not someone believes the allegations to be credible almost completely falls along party lines.  There is very little unbiased thought going on.

I agree with you, but this really boils down to a he said-she said encounter. There simply isn't any evidence to prove or disprove this ever happened. She has to prove she was attacked, how could she possibly do that?, that's how the rule of law works, Kavanaugh is to be considered innocent, until proven guilty. 

[Gray]

Just now, snowflake said:

http://bwcentral.org/2018/09/stunning-all-four-witnesses-deny-christine-fords-story-and-all-four-witnesses-deny-party-ever-took-place/

The 4 women deny any wrongdoing.  

 

I could not be more convinced had Racoon Witness Central and Possum Witness Central also weighed in.

[Gray]

Just now, snowflake said:

I agree with you, but this really boils down to a he said-she said encounter. There simply isn't any evidence to prove or disprove this ever happened. She has to prove she was attacked, how could she possibly do that?, that's how the rule of law works, Kavanaugh is to be considered innocent, until proven guilty. 

He should definitely not go to prison just based on this. But there is more than enough evidence to disqualify from him from the supreme court

[alter idem]

50 minutes ago, 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.

No, we don't know for a fact that he is willing to lie under oath.  This is more allegations and opinion.

Yes, I'm aware of what happened to Robert Bork.  Do you know that what was done to him is now called 'borking' and it's what's happening to Kavanaugh?  

I'm not confusing this with a trial, I'm trying to point out that these are criminal allegations.  The Sweatnick allegations should have been reported to police at the time they occurred, not shared 35 years later in order to delay/derail a senate confirmation vote.  So far, there are no credible allegations against him.  There are three separate accusations with no corroborating witnesses.

I reiterate once again, he went through six background checks and don't you think if he was a sexual predator, as you claim, it would have been revealed in at least one of those background checks?

 

This is being done to either pressure Kavanaugh to withdraw his name or to delay the vote until after the midterm election.

[snowflake]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

He should definitely not go to prison just based on this. But there is more than enough evidence to disqualify from him from the supreme court

What evidence are you talking about? There is no evidence this encounter took place!.....Misleading the senate.....Meh.....none of the supreme court nominees ever answer any questions on policy. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is problematic because senators deem the allegations against him to be credible, then the Senate Judiciary Committee should do what it does with any other problematic nomination: A majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee should vote against forwarding the nomination to the full Senate.  Failing that, the Senate should vote against confirming Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States Supreme Court. 

 

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the bigger problem seems to be that whether or not someone believes the allegations to be credible almost completely falls along party lines.  There is very little unbiased thought going on.

From what I've seen of his public statements on the matter, Judge Kavanaugh seems rather guileless, entirely earnest, and completely sincere.  However, even if one disagrees with my assessment of him, and even if my voice is simply yet another voice in the cacophonous din of millions of voices in the court of public opinion, the timing and lack of detail in the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh seem very suspect.  (As I've already noted, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) has known about Judge Kavanaugh's first accuser's allegations for months.)  There's a reason why the applicable statutes of limitations would bar civil suit and criminal prosecution against him.  Such allegations should not be permitted to hang forever over the head of an accused like the Sword of Damocles until someone finally decides to cut the thread.  (And remember: I'm one of the most pro-police, pro-prosecution people you will ever run across in Cyber space.)  While everyone else is free to pooh-pooh my statute-of-limitations defense of Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion, for me, the same rules apply in that court as apply in a court of law, for much the same reasons.

I don't think the allegations are credible because: (1) there is almost no evidence to support them; and (2) because they are over 30 years old.  If they are credible enough to scuttle Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court now, they were credible enough to scuttle his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as his hiring or appointment to any of his previous jobs in federal service.  

Edited September 26, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[snowflake]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

He should definitely not go to prison just based on this. But there is more than enough evidence to disqualify from him from the supreme court

My prediction........Ford never shows up to testify...all political theater by the Dems. 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if it's going to be possible to discuss this issue without things getting political, but I thought it was interesting enough to give it a try.  Should the LDS senators involved care at all what the Mormon Women for Ethical Government think?

I'd not heard of them before. A lot would depend upon what relationships they've already developed. If it turns out they're just a liberal activist group that happens to be Mormon then obviously they'll not have much of an effect. Likewise if they were just formed for this nomination and don't have a track record they'll have less of an effect.

That said, at this stage Kavanaugh doesn't have much of a hope. I suspect the Friday vote is just so Republicans can get it overwith since he apparently has no intention of withdrawing. I do think the way all of this was handled by both sides has been egregious. We now have one more thing that divides and angers an already polarized political class. (Here meaning by that those who follow/care about political news regularly) In particular both Pelosi and Hatch ought be ashamed of themselves.