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

[Duncan]

Just now, Anijen said:

Ok.

This yearbook entry does absolutely nothing to even imply Kavanaugh was a rapist.

why would he lie about being drunk on the FOX news piece then? why not fess up to it?

[blueglass]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Should the LDS senators involved care at all what the Mormon Women for Ethical Government think?

Senator Flake and the MWEG have aligned interests in hearing the testimonies of the accusers and evaluating the truth and evidence.   Flake is a voice of reason - and I hope this can pass and they can nominate someone new.  Not sure if Lee would take the job?  

[Anijen]

36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

why would he lie about being drunk on the FOX news piece then? why not fess up to it?

I watched the FOX interview and he specifically stated that he went to parties with kegs and participated. Again, how does this imply he is a rapist? It doesn't. 

Edited to ask: Did you watch the FOX interview or just snippets of it from CNN? CNN was broadcasting portions of the interview that were highly edited. One portion showed him flat out denying the sexual allegation, but CNN made it look like he was denying ever being drunk and then replayed a portion were he did say he drank and it made him look like he was lying. He did denying getting so drunk that he couldn't remember what happened.

Here is the interview. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Anijen

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Senator Flake and the MWEG have aligned interests in hearing the testimonies of the accusers and evaluating the truth and evidence.   Flake is a voice of reason - and I hope this can pass and they can nominate someone new.  Not sure if Lee would take the job?  

Don't kid yourself.  Democrats (and perhaps even Senator Flake) will oppose whomever President Trump nominates.  What makes you think Democrats would be any better disposed toward the Lees (not sure if you're referring to Mike Lee or to his brother, Thomas) than they are toward Judge Kavanaugh or toward any other Republican nominee?  They dusted off the playbook from the nomination of Judge-cum-Justice Clarence Thomas.  If Judge Kavanaugh withdraws from consideration, Democrats will say, "Yep!  Sure enough!  It works!  Why fix it if it ain't broke?" and will attempt to employ similar tactics against anyone the President nominates.  Make no mistake: Even if someone such as one of the Lee brothers were nominated, by the time Democrats are through with him, Ted Bundy would have had a better shot at being confirmed to the Supreme Court than anyone Trump would nominate.   That said, this is less about Kavanaugh than it is about keeping the seat open past the midterms, and perhaps even until the 2020 presidential election.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If he is lying about it now, that is not a meaningless statement about his current character (I am not saying he is or isn't, been preoccupied and have not put enough study into it to justify an opinion, imo).

That is exactly my main concern right now.  If the original allegation (Ford's) is true, I don't think it should have prevented confirmation.  (The most recent allegation is more troubling if true.  It would suggest a pattern that is not only criminal, but also makes him, in my opinion, unfit for even his current role.)  But, in my mind, if Ford's account is even partially true, Kavanaugh's proclamation of innocence and complete denial would absolutely suggest a morally corrupt character that should disqualify him from future service.  

The problem for me is that there may not be any way to ever know what the truth is.  Even if we do a full investigation and find out in 6 months that Kavanaugh is completely innocent, there is no real chance that he is confirmed.  Guilty or Innocent, an investigation effectively ends his career and successfully blocks a Supreme Court nomination.

I guess what concerns me most about the request of this Women's Group is that they don't seem to acknowledge this as a real possibility or explain why it is a worthwhile trade-off.  An investigation sounds great.  We shouldn't be putting a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.  But what if he isn't.  There is no indication that he has any chance of being confirmed after being found innocent.  If an investigation finds that he did commit these acts or lie about the events, there is a process for impeaching him and removing him from office.  But if these allegations are not true, and an investigation successfully stalls his confirmation, there is no way to correct that wrong.  

What scares me most, is that if he is in fact guilty, a significant portion of the population will not believe it.  Right or wrong, they will blame Democrats and believe that they were cheated out of a Supreme Court Justice with no recourse.  I know that many feel that way about Garland, but I just think the way this is being done is very risky.  It may be effective in the short term, but I honestly worry about what the backlash could be.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

But, what if the allegations are true?

Why couldn't we charge him with perjury and impeach him?   

[tulip]

Another lying democrat!

[tulip]

Jeff Flake supports Fidel Castro and the Cuba regime.   Flake lies about everything!

[carbon dioxide]

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. 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I watched the FOX interview and he specifically stated that he went to parties with kegs and participated. Again, how does this imply he is a rapist? It doesn't. 

at the 1:27 mark Blasey-Ford says, according to the interviewer, she doesn't remember the date or place but then watch what Kavanaugh says about the date and place, summer of 1982 and the location of the house, that's interesting-where did he get that information from, if not from Blasey-Ford?

I think the point you are making is at the 10 minute mark, he says he went to these parties and had drinks but at the 12:39 point what he says is what I am talking about, "no, that never happened" and to me they contradict each other. Either he got drunk or he didn't. If he didn't get drunk why write the yearbook comment about the keg club? if he did get drunk why would he say "no, that never happened" how would he know if he was drunk at the time for it not to have happened?

 

[bsjkki]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

(I used mormon in the title of the thread because it's the title of the article).

Mormon Women's group calls on.....

"A coalition of women from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Tuesday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to suspend any confirmation vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an investigation is completed into claims of sexual misconduct.

The Mormon Women for Ethical Government, which identified itself as a nonpartisan group comprising about 6,000 members, directed its message at every member of the judiciary panel but specifically called on the four Mormons on the committee, Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho.)

“Our mutual faith teaches that any sexual abuse or assault in any context is contemptible and worthy of the most severe condemnation,” the group said in a statement. “If these accusations are proved false, an investigation will prevent harm to the court’s legitimacy. If they are true, then Judge Kavanaugh must not be confirmed.”

 

Has anyone ever heard of this group?  This is the first time I've heard of it.  Kudos to them though for getting involved.

 

"Earlier this month, Christine Blasey Ford accused the nominee of pinning her to bed and trying to remove her clothes when they were both at a party during their high school years. A second woman, Deborah Ramirez, came forward Sunday and alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself and thrust his penis in her face at a party when they both attended Yale University. Both have asked for an  FBI investigation into their claims.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.

“Such allegations must be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated,” Tuesday’s letter reads. “If we brush them aside, or minimize them, or excuse them away because ‘he was young’ or ‘he was drunk,’ we are sending an appalling and incredibly damaging message to both the young women AND the young men of our country.”

Sharlee Mullins Glenn, the group’s founder and president, told The New York Times that none of the four senators has responded to the letter."

"That decision has prompted condemnation, including from the group of women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

“Stop pushing forward despite the clear objections of Dr. Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and millions of other women across the country,” the group wrote Tuesday. “Women comprise half of your constituents. If you truly respect women, then demonstrate it by honoring our requests to go slowly here. The appalling audacity of some of your colleagues in declaring their intention to simply take this seat with or without the broad support of women everywhere is just as troubling as the allegations against Kavanaugh. In fact, the irony is chilling.”

 

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 do know about this group. It formed after President Trump's election. I was invited to join. It may be formed with Republicans and Democrats but what they have in common is they dislike President Trump and lean heavily liberal. One of their Facebook posts was quoted to my wards Facebook page without attribution. This post from September 4...can you spot the bias. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh began this morning and continue all week. This is a critically important process and decision, which is unfortunately often, and certainly in this case, highly politicized.

Please call both of your senators (from both parties) this week and encourage them to put partisanship aside and commit to a thorough and fair vetting of Brett Kavanaugh's record, his qualifications, his character, and his judicial philosophies.

Please let them know that you believe senators from both parties have a duty to make sure he was not selected by President Trump as a way to insulate himself from legal or political repercussions of illegal or unethical conduct. And please let them know that you expect and value civility throughout this process. Extreme factions on both sides are putting immense pressure on senators from both parties. We need to speak up for civility and ethics just as loudly!

The hearings wil be broadcast live on CSPAN and PBS Newshour, and you can follow reporting and expert commentary at: http://live.scotusblog.com/…/mobile&Theme=12540&Whitelabel=…

Here are some helpful articles to bring you up to speed on the process and the nominee.

https://www.wsj.com/…/what-we-learn-from-supreme-court-conf…

https://www.pbs.org/…/why-should-you-watch-brett-kavanaughs…

http://thehill.com/…/400814-collins-and-murkowski-face-rece…

http://thehill.com/…/404652-feinstein-under-the-microscope-…"

Did any of you watch the hearing? I tried but it was very difficult because of the disrespectful way the nominee was treated. It is truly sad that our institutions are beginning to fail.

I believe assault/rape victims and think they should tell their stories. It does not mean I will believe all their stories. The political nature and 11th hour materialization of these accusations is suspect and I have been reading witness statements and reading all the allegations.

Dr. Ford--I hope she testifies tomorrow. Some details of her story have evolved and the polygraph test was not traditional. She refuses to hand over her therapists notes she references in the allegation. How are the senators supposed to know she is telling the truth if she won't produce the evidence she has referenced? All four named attendees at the party refute her claim.

2nd allegation--Ramirez admits she was drunk and not sure of her allegation. The New York Times reports she called classmates and told them she was unsure of her memory. She thought about it for 6 days 35 years after the fact after hunkering down with a Democratic lawyer and was then sure of her memory. How am I supposed to believe her? 

3rd allegation--The accuser is 3 years older than Kavanaugh and supposedly attended high schools parties while she was in college multiple times where women were raped? Even Ronan Farrow said her story had not been vetted by journalists. I don't think too many people on either side of the aisle are taking this one seriously...when you've lost Jake Tapper...

4th allegation--Completely anonymous person said her daughter's friend told her the story about the bar and being shoved in a sexual way. How do you evaluate an anonymous letter with hearsay allegations? And, he was supposedly dating this person. Who was it? Will she come forward?

I don't know why a mans life should be destroyed based on the evidence I have seen. It has been making me feel ill. If he is guilty, I hope it is proven. If he is innocent I hope he fights this to the bitter end. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

9 minutes 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. 

How do you know the same thing won't happen again? If it only takes unproven allegations to ruin a man or woman, they could do this over and over and over again. I hope Ford testifies tomorrow.

[Anijen]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

at the 1:27 mark Blasey-Ford says, according to the interviewer, she doesn't remember the date or place but then watch what Kavanaugh says about the date and place, summer of 1982 and the location of the house, that's interesting-where did he get that information from, if not from Blasey-Ford?

I think the point you are making is at the 10 minute mark, he says he went to these parties and had drinks but at the 12:39 point what he says is what I am talking about, "no, that never happened" and to me they contradict each other. Either he got drunk or he didn't. If he didn't get drunk why write the yearbook comment about the keg club? if he did get drunk why would he say "no, that never happened" how would he know if he was drunk at the time for it not to have happened?

 

Where is the lie? Rewatch, at the 12:39 mark (about) he answers that never happened to the specific question; "was there ever a time were you drank so much were you couldn't remember what happened the night before?" He is answering no to that specific question of ever drinking, not that he didn't drink, but that he never drank to the point he couldn't remember. Making connections that are not there at most is very questionable and at worse plainly deceiving.

 

Quote

at the 1:27 mark Blasey-Ford says, according to the interviewer, she doesn't remember the date or place but then watch what Kavanaugh says about the date and place, summer of 1982 and the location of the house, that's interesting-where did he get that information from, if not from Blasey-Ford?

He did get it from Blasey-Ford after she amended her story. Her initial letter had no date, no place, or year. It was only after immense criticism of these details that were lacking that she astonishly filled in more details before this interview. Her letter had none of these details and for you to say he is lying because he mentions them in this interview does not count for Blasey-Ford later suddenly remembering some of the details, but only after criticism for its lack of details. Here is the transcribed letter.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Anijen

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I do know about this group. It formed after President Trump's election. I was invited to join. It may be formed with Republicans and Democrats but what they have in common is they dislike President Trump and lean heavily liberal. One of their Facebook posts was quoted to my wards Facebook page without attribution. This post from September 4...can you spot the bias. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh began this morning and continue all week. This is a critically important process and decision, which is unfortunately often, and certainly in this case, highly politicized.

Please call both of your senators (from both parties) this week and encourage them to put partisanship aside and commit to a thorough and fair vetting of Brett Kavanaugh's record, his qualifications, his character, and his judicial philosophies.

Please let them know that you believe senators from both parties have a duty to make sure he was not selected by President Trump as a way to insulate himself from legal or political repercussions of illegal or unethical conduct. And please let them know that you expect and value civility throughout this process. Extreme factions on both sides are putting immense pressure on senators from both parties. We need to speak up for civility and ethics just as loudly!

The hearings wil be broadcast live on CSPAN and PBS Newshour, and you can follow reporting and expert commentary at: http://live.scotusblog.com/…/mobile&Theme=12540&Whitelabel=…

Here are some helpful articles to bring you up to speed on the process and the nominee.

https://www.wsj.com/…/what-we-learn-from-supreme-court-conf…

https://www.pbs.org/…/why-should-you-watch-brett-kavanaughs…

http://thehill.com/…/400814-collins-and-murkowski-face-rece…

http://thehill.com/…/404652-feinstein-under-the-microscope-…"

Did any of you watch the hearing? I tried but it was very difficult because of the disrespectful way the nominee was treated. It is truly sad that our institutions are beginning to fail.

I believe assault/rape victims and think they should tell their stories. It does not mean I will believe all their stories. The political nature and 11th hour materialization of these accusations is suspect and I have been reading witness statements and reading all the allegations.

Dr. Ford--I hope she testifies tomorrow. Some details of her story have evolved and the polygraph test was not traditional. She refuses to hand over her therapists notes she references in the allegation. How are the senators supposed to know she is telling the truth if she won't produce the evidence she has referenced. All four named attendees at the party refute her claim.

2nd allegation--Ramirez admits she was drunk and not sure of her allegation. The New York Times reports she called classmates and told them she was unsure of her memory. She thought about it for 6 days 35 years after the fact after hunkering down with a Democratic lawyer and was then sure of her memory. How am I supposed to believe her? 

3rd allegation--The accuser is 3 years older than Kavanaugh and supposedly attended high schools parties while she was in college multiple times where women were raped? Even Ronan Farrow said her story had not been vetted by journalists. I don't think too many people on either side of the aisle are taking this one seriously...when you've lost Jake Tapper...

4th allegation--Completely anonymous person said her daughter friend told her the story about the bar and being shoved in a sexual way. How do you evaluate an anonymous letter with hearsay allegations? And, he was supposedly dating this person. Who was it? Will she come forward?

I don't know why a mans life should be destroyed based on the evidence I have seen. It has been making me feel ill. If he is guilty, I hope it is proven. If he is innocent I hope he fights this to the bitter end. 

I think the larger issue is what Bart O'Kavanaugh, I mean, Brett Kavanaugh will do and that is repeal Roe v. Wade and given the political situation in the US since Trump got in, I don't think that will end well if it gets repealed. Trump has so many scandals going on and had that went on, this isn't one he needs. 

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I think the larger issue is what Bart O'Kavanaugh, I mean, Brett Kavanaugh will do and that is repeal Roe v. Wade and given the political situation in the US since Trump got in, I don't think that will end well if it gets repealed. Trump has so many scandals going on and had that went on, this isn't one he needs. 

It is shocking Bart O'Kavanaugh puked after drinking too much. That definitely would disqualify him from ever serving on the Supreme Court. Thank you for acknowledging this is really about the abortion fight. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Anijen said:

Where is the lie? Rewatch, at the 12:39 mark (about) he answers that never happened to the specific question; "was there ever a time were you drank so much were you couldn't remember what happened the night before?" He is answering no to that specific question, not that he didn't drink, but that he never drank to the point he couldn't remember. Making connections that are not there at most is very questionable and at worse plainly deceiving.

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

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

It is shocking Bart O'Kavanaugh puked after drinking too much. That definitely would disqualify him from ever serving on the Supreme Court. Thank you for acknowledging this is really about the abortion fight. 

and lying about in on TV is the nail on his own coffin

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

and lying about in on TV is the nail on his own coffin

Where did he say he never puked after drinking... I didn't hear that? And, you are assuming he is Bart from Judge's book (probably correctly) but we really don't know.

[Duncan]

Just now, bsjkki said:

Where did he say he never puked after drinking... I didn't hear that? And, you are assuming he is Bart from Judge's book (probably correctly) but we really don't know.

you have a friend named Brett Kavanaugh and then write a book about your drinking days and have a character named "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who drinks so much and now all this comes forward, you have to put it all together and it spells he's lying and not the saint the republicans are trotting him out to be

[bsjkki]

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

He never said he was never drunk...he said he was never blacked out and could not remember anything. I'm not a drinker so can not determine if that is normal or not. Do you know?

[bsjkki]

One more very anecdotal comment. I had one sister call and tell me she had an overwhelming feeling to pray for Judge Kavanaugh. Another called to tell me how mad she was at the group Mormon Women for Ethical Government. I would like to know what  their stance on abortion is.

[Duncan]

Just now, bsjkki said:

He never said he was never drunk...he said he was never blacked out and could not remember anything. I'm not a drinker so can not determine if that is normal or not. Do you know?

no, I have never drunk so I don't know. What I am saying is how would he know he couldn't remember anything if he was drunk  and why write his Keg Club comment ?

[bsjkki]

 

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

no, I have never drunk so I don't know. What I am saying is how would he know he couldn't remember anything if he was drunk  and why write his Keg Club comment ?

I have read being black out drunk and drunk are two very different things but I don't know. I am very grateful for the commandments. Maybe only Mormons should be nominated in the future but if being drunk disqualifies, we have a small pool to choose from.

[Anijen]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think the larger issue is what Bart O'Kavanaugh, I mean, Brett Kavanaugh will do and that is repeal Roe v. Wade and given the political situation in the US since Trump got in, I don't think that will end well if it gets repealed. Trump has so many scandals going on and had that went on, this isn't one he needs. 

People who claim Kavanaugh will repeal Roe v. Wade do not know how the Supreme Court works. It [issue on Roe v. Wade] must start from a lower court, go through a states highest appellate court, then certiorari is applied for. If Certiorari is granted then all nine Justices will have a hearing, many briefs will be written, and a vote taken. It would take 5 votes to remand or reverse Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh's lone vote would be insufficient on its own. Roberts has implied he would hold to Kennedy's decision and thus only four votes  for would not be enough (that is assuming the remaining Republican nominated Justices all voted the same).. Even worse case scenario (for Pro-choice) if remanded or reverse, it would go back to each states would be allowed to legislate for or against abortion. Thus, abortion will never be taken away, it just won't be a federal law where every state has to comply.

[Calm]

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/

Quote

It happens quite often, too. Despite advice from experts and beer commercials, most people do not drink responsibly. More than 50 percent of adults have blacked out at least once in their lives. The number isn’t surprising considering almost 25 percent of adults binge-drink every month, according to stats from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Calm