Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ggwhiz]

I apologize in advance for what I suppose is at least a diversion if not a hijack but I am having a problem here.

 

As I get it, this girl was 15 when she was at this party. Alcohol was being served.

We can get back to Trump. I promise, but if someone could just help me understand this I would appreciate it.

 

When I was that age we had a record snowfall in Ottawa. We dug down in a guys front yard, dug out 3 large caverns, carved snow benches, outfitted them with Coleman lamps and had the wildest party with more than just alcohol. The parents and all the neighbours were home at the time.

 

Kids were inventive to the point of never being denied and despite the new phenom of helicopter parents I bet you they still are.

[johnu]

There's been enough come out so far to indicate that there may have been abuse of power by the DOJ and FBI.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Poor Dennison. He's just the lowly President of the United States, he appointed the Attorney General of the United States who is in charge of the DOJ and FBI. The AG can be fired at any time. Every member of his cabinet has publicly licked his boots and virtually every Republican in Congress is terrified to criticize any of his crazy words and actions. Poor Dennison getting picked on by the US government :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[kenberg]

When I was that age we had a record snowfall in Ottawa. We dug down in a guys front yard, dug out 3 large caverns, carved snow benches, outfitted them with Coleman lamps and had the wildest party with more than just alcohol. The parents and all the neighbours were home at the time.

 

Kids were inventive to the point of never being denied and despite the new phenom of helicopter parents I bet you they still are.

 

It's different.I strongly believe that it's very difficult to stop a 17 year old from screwing up his life if he is determined to do so. Allowing an unsupervised party (and if a potential rape happened I think unsupervised is an understatement) with alcohol and 15 year old girls is an entirely different matter. Making the best of a record snowfall sounds great, I can imagine getting in on that. I suppose the "more than" includes drugs. Not my thing.

 

But I am more thinking of what I gather is a routine practice of turning over the house and the booze to a munch of high schoolers. This sounds brain dead stupid to me.

 

Full disclosure: I was divorced twice, nobody has nominated me for family man of the year. But some things just seem dumb to me. My kids survived my failures, and we are close. So perfection? No. But with the boozy parties I just don't get it.

 

[kenberg]

Ken, I would never attempt to help you understand anything; you're much smarter than I am. But I will offer my opinion. I think it all goes back to the mid-60's and Timothy Leary with https://en.wikipedia...ne_in,_drop_out and https://en.wikipedia...tion_authority. A lot of young people bought into that philosophy with the "love-ins" in San Francisco and the "if it feels good, do it" mentality. So my question is the same as yours. "Where were the adults at this house party? Where were Blasey's and Kavanaugh's parents?" Perhaps they were turned on, tuned in, and at a party of their on at the country club. You and I are of a different generation. I would not even dream of letting my 15 year-old daughter (if I had one) attend a house party that I knew would be unchaperoned with alcohol flowing; same goes for my 17 year-old son (and I had two of those). I'm sure you feel the same.

 

Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh was falling-down drunk and trying to get Dr. Blasey's clothes off; he unequivocally denies it. Perhaps Dr. Blasey was falling down drunk too; she stands by her story, yet she says she doesn't remember exactly where the party was, how she got there, or how she got home. And so far she has ignored the committee's invitation to appear next Monday to tell her story which she initially released anonymously. So we really don't know who, if either, is telling lies.

 

I have been thinking about the "who to believe" question. My immediate response was intuitive, it sounded like the truth to me, amnd I have not changed my mind. But of course the world does not run on Ken's intuition.

 

I invite you to consider: There is this guy Judge (I think I have the name right). He and Kavanaugh were friends, pretty close as I understand it. Now if a close friend was having his career and his life sabotaged by some irresponsible accusation that included me as a witness, I would be on the first jet out to Congress demanding to be heard. That does not appear to be happening. Ok, I am a Metro ride away from Congress, but you get the idea.

 

It is being siad that there is no collaboration. Well, there is Judge. If he is broke I think someone could be found to pay his airfare. Hell, I might.

[hrothgar]

When I was growing up

 

1. The drinking age was officially 18 and unofficially much lower than that.

2. Parents would often leave home for the weekend or even longer and place their kids in charge

 

Doesn't anyone remember movies like Risky Business?

 

(With this said and done, when I wanted to get wrecked, I'd just wander over to Vassar which had any number of options for parties)

[hrothgar]

Must say, I find Christine Blasey Ford's insistence that the FBI needs to investigate the alleged sexual assault before she testifies to be confusing.

 

I don't mean to discount her allegations which I find highly credible, but, its unclear what an FBI investigation of this specific incident would turn up.

[cherdano]

Must say, I find Christine Blasey Ford's insistence that the FBI needs to investigate the alleged sexual assault before she testifies to be confusing.

 

I don't mean to discount her allegations which I find highly credible, but, its unclear what an FBI investigation of this specific incident would turn up.

She did name (to the Washington Post) two others who attended that party. It's not as if there is nothing the FBI could do.

 

(Of course, these witnesses, as well as Judge, could also be subpoenaed and be interrogated by the club of octanegarians Judiciary Committee, but as they've made clear they don't want to know more than they have to know...)

 

Still, I am wondering about the quality of advice she is getting. Her lawyer did suggest to her to take a polygraph after all.

[awm]

Must say, I find Christine Blasey Ford's insistence that the FBI needs to investigate the alleged sexual assault before she testifies to be confusing.

 

I don't mean to discount her allegations which I find highly credible, but, its unclear what an FBI investigation of this specific incident would turn up.

 

The Republicans basically want to call her in front of the committee so they can try to destroy her credibility. The reality is that she doesn't remember every detail of this incident (no big surprise since it was over 30 years ago) but they will try to make it look like this means she was lying. And they'll probably do what's often done to victims and try to make it look like she was "asking for it" by being at the party or whatever.

 

Why should she want to subject herself to this destruction of her own reputation, without guarantees that there's going to be some kind of serious investigation?

[barmar]

I apologize in advance for what I suppose is at least a diversion if not a hijack but I am having a problem here.

 

As I get it, this girl was 15 when she was at this party. Alcohol was being served. Whether it was Kavanaugh or not, some boy got seriously aggressive, seriously enough that it appears to be an attempted rape. A 17 year old boy does not belong at such a party, but a 15 year old girl? What the hell? Surely the parents who own the house are legally liable for the underage drinking, and I would think they would have some legal liability for a rape that occurred. And that's just speaking of the legality. I am far more concerned with the overall judgment.

 

It is often said that kids grow up faster these days. Do they? Drunken sex is not my idea of growing up faster.

 

Ms. Ford went to Holton Arms. That's about 2 miles from Whitman High, where my grandkids went (the youngest is now in college, so this was a bit back). Whitman had sent something to the parents expressing concern over what seemed to be becoming a widespread practice and urging parents to put a stop to this (this =drinking parties). My daughter and her husband did not need this warning but apparently many did, and some ignored it. I don't get it.

 

Some posters have said they had gone to such parties when in high school. How does this work? Does the kid say "Hey Dad, I want to throw this really great party for the kids so please buy me some gin, some bourbon and some good scotch and then get lost for a few hours Saturday night." ? Or are the parents just clueless?

 

We can get back to Trump. I promise, but if someone could just help me understand this I would appreciate it.

The crowd I ran with in high school were all good kids. We were nerds and science geeks, and all graduated near the top of our class (I had a 95th percentile GPA, and most of my friends were even higher). So our parents generally trusted us to behave responsibly, and we never gave them cause not to.

 

But we weren't perfect. We had fake IDs and went to bars even though we were below drinking age (it was still 18 at the time). Someone always managed to get beer and rum to bring to our parties. Since I never developed a taste for liquor, I was generally the designated driver. I can't recall any time one of my friends drove while drunk, although I couldn't swear it didn't happen. I remember once or twice we even went to a strip club (but it might have been later, maybe when I was home for the summer after my freshman year of college, or the stag party before one of them got married). I can tell you one thing: stuff like that is pretty boring when you're sober.

 

We probably had parties every month or two, at different friends' houses. This was an upper middle-class town, we all had large houses with finished basements, and that's where we usually had our parties. The parents might be upstairs in the family room or their bedroom, they weren't lording over us.

 

These weren't wild toga parties like in "Animal House", it was about a dozen regular friends hanging out, playing music, some getting a little drunk or high, couples making out. It was just one of the things teenage kids did -- sometimes we would go out to a movie or the amusement park, other times we would have a party.

[kenberg]

Must say, I find Christine Blasey Ford's insistence that the FBI needs to investigate the alleged sexual assault before she testifies to be confusing.

 

I don't mean to discount her allegations which I find highly credible, but, its unclear what an FBI investigation of this specific incident would turn up.

 

The R's, last I heard, were insisting that there will be only two witnesses. If the FBI decides to look at this as part of a background check, no doubt they will have a word with Judge. Judge may not be the smartest cookie on the block but he probably realizes lying to the FBI is a bad move. I can see why someone, her lawyer, a friend, or me if she reads the BBO-WC, , might advise her to push for the FBI to take a look.

[Chas_P]

Must say, I find Christine Blasey Ford's insistence that the FBI needs to investigate the alleged sexual assault before she testifies to be confusing.

 

I don't mean to discount her allegations which I find highly credible, but, its unclear what an FBI investigation of this specific incident would turn up.

 

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate? No crime victim, regardless of credibility, gets to dictate the terms of the investigation. The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes. So if she's truly seeking justice for a 36 year-old crime, rather than just being a pawn for Feinstein et al, that avenue is always open; of course she would have to prove her case. Whatever the outcome, Dr. Blasey will come out OK. Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed and she will be a martyr who can command big speaking fees, maybe a book deal, and the solemn pride that must be hers to know that she has besmirched the reputation of a truly decent man.

[johnu]

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate?

 

Because that's the FBI's job to do background checks on high level Federal appointments. This was something that apparently did not come up in the initial FBI check into Kavanaugh's background. Should the FBI not have done a background search on Kavanaugh when he was first nominated B-) This would be a reopening of the initial background check which apparently did not uncover this attempted rape incident on their first check.

 

This would not be a criminal investigation. In case you want to be slow on the intake, I repeat. This would not be a criminal investigation.

 

 

Any potential witnesses would be interviewed under oath. Professor Ford has named 2 other people who were at the part according to the Washington Post. Don't you think that those 2 people should tell their recollections under oath? If not, why not?

 

If somebody else remembers Kavanaugh at that party that he categorically denies not even attending *, what does that say about Kavanaugh's credibility?

 

* He could have said he didn't remember, or maybe he was drunk and didn't remember. He chose to categorically deny he was present at that party :o :o :o

[Chas_P]

In case you want to be slow on the intake

 

John, let me preface this by saying that after long and careful consideration I have been unable to come up with one thing on Earth that I consider less significant than your opinion of me; actually your attempted insults are laughable. With that said I will repeat what I said earlier. Read it carefully. In no case does the victim of a a crime...no matter how credible or sympathetic...get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

[johnu]

John, let me preface this by saying that after long and careful consideration I have been unable to come up with one thing on Earth that I consider less significant than your opinion of me; actually your attempted insults are laughable. With that said I will repeat what I said earlier. Read it carefully. In no case does the victim of a a crime...no matter how credible or sympathetic...get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I was pretty sure you wouldn't understand the concept that the reopening of the FBI background check was not a criminal investigation.

 

As to whether it is the FBI's job to do reopen a background check on a Supreme Court nominee, you only have to go back to the Clarence Thomas nomination and Anita Hill's accusations. In that case, the White House under President George HW Bush immediately ordered the FBI to reopen the background check of Thomas and the FBI conducted a (cursory) investigation in 3 days. And then there were the Anita Hill hearings that most everybody is familiar with.

 

Here's how the FBI investigated Anita Hill's sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas

 

Back in 1991, Senators Grassley and Hatch were on the record as being in favor of reopening the FBI background check process.

 

There are serious accusations about Kavanaugh's character. I would think that if nothing really happened, he would be the first one to demand FBI involvement so the truth would come out. Apparently I am wrong about that particular point.

 

Note: Lying to the FBI is a crime as everybody has been reminded of from Mueller's investigation. One person is calling for the FBI to investigate. And the other, ???

[johnu]

Spanish Official: Dennison Suggested Building a Wall Across the Sahara

 

Finally, Dennison comes up with a stable genius idea. That will surely keep illegal immigrants out of Spain.

 

Map of Sahara desert

[barmar]

I agree. Why should the FBI investigate? No crime victim, regardless of credibility, gets to dictate the terms of the investigation. The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations on sexual assault crimes. So if she's truly seeking justice for a 36 year-old crime, rather than just being a pawn for Feinstein et al, that avenue is always open; of course she would have to prove her case. Whatever the outcome, Dr. Blasey will come out OK. Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed and she will be a martyr who can command big speaking fees, maybe a book deal, and the solemn pride that must be hers to know that she has besmirched the reputation of a truly decent man.

The Senate wants Dr. Ford to testify. If all we get is testimony from her and Kavanaugh, it will just be he-said-she-said, and the GOP senators are clearly biased in his favor.

 

She doesn't have the resources to investigate the incident herself, all she has is her own recollections, and trying to impress the senators with her integrity, which obviously isn't enough. The FBI, on the other hand, has dozens of investigators. If the senate needs corroborating evidence for either of the parties' claims, they're the ones to get it.

 

All she's asking is for the Senate to be responsible in handling the accusation, rather than just conducting a pro forma hearing.

[kenberg]

Everyone brings their own perspective to the sexual assault issue. A WaPo story this morning reports some details about the possibility of mis-identification.

Ed Whelan, a former clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed to floor plans, online photographs and other information to suggest a location for the house party in suburban Maryland that Ford described. He also named and posted photographs of the classmate he suggested could be responsible.

Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” the other classmate, Ford said, adding that she had once visited him in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”

Ok, this possibility has to be considered. Where does this lead us? To Mark Judge, obviously. And to the FBI, who can forcefully ask "Ok, which dude was it?". Of course we only have Ford's word for it that Judge was there, maybe she mis-identified him. Who knows, maybe she mis-identified herself, we only have her word for it that she was the one on the bed.

 

This really has nothing to do with Ford "directing the investigation". It has everything to do with "Do we or do we not want to know what happened?". And if the Rs just ram this through, I think people can work out the answer to that one.

 

[ldrews]

Everyone brings their own perspective to the sexual assault issue. A WaPo story this morning reports some details about the possibility of mis-identification.

 

Ok, this possibility has to be considered. Where does this lead us? To Mark Judge, obviously. And to the FBI, who can forcefully ask "Ok, which dude was it?". Of course we only have Ford's word for it that Judge was there, maybe she mis-identified him. Who knows, maybe she mis-identified herself, we only have her word for it that she was the one on the bed.

 

This really has nothing to do with Ford "directing the investigation". It has everything to do with "Do we or do we not want to know what happened?". And if the Rs just ram this through, I think people can work out the answer to that one.

 

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

[johnu]

QFT

 

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

 

Unfortunately, this is the view of most Republicans in the Senate.

 

As Sen Grassley's alleged chief investigator for the committee, Mike Davis, tweeted,

 

Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh. #ConfirmKavanaugh

 

Davis accidentally tweeted the truth about the so called "investigation".

[johnu]

Women for Kavanaugh

[hrothgar]

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

 

At the most petty and basic level, if Ford's accusations are true it means that Kavenaugh has repeated lied about this incident which is more than enough to disqualify him.

 

At a more basic level, sexual assault, even by a 17 year old, is more more than enough to disqualify one from any number of jobs.

The Supreme Court, which is supposedly for out best and most respected judges certainly falls in this category.

 

With this said and done, I fail to see the need of appointing Kavenaugh...

Aren't there any other number of Federalist Society clones ready to take his place?

 

Why Kavenaugh? (Unless of course you really really care about Kavenaugh's position on impeachment)

[kenberg]

Does it really matter? Even if Ford's accusations are true does that effect Kavenaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court? Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

 

I am willing to discuss this. When I was 17 I had a forced ride in a paddy wagon down to the police station. The cop suggested "Kind of old for this, aren't you son?" I have always regretted that I did not look him up later and let him know that his words actually registered with me. In the other direction, when I was 8 or so I had a babysitter, 12 or so, and not a future Supreme Court nominee, who showed me some fun games to play after bedtime. Of course for this babysitter example 12 isn't 17 and, for the first example, a ruckus in a movie theater is not the same as trying to rape someone.

 

As I see it, our parents are to make reasonable efforts to keep us in line when we are 12, we are responsible for ourselves when we are 18, 17 is on the cusp. Definitely not a child. At 15 I bought a car, with my money, hitchhiking around until I found the one I wanted, and then hitching back to tell my parents I needed their signature on something. At 17 I told my parents that I had decided to go to college rather than join the navy, the costs were my responsibility. For Kavanaugh, I still think there was a culture of privilege at play here. I broke rules, I never had the idea that the rules did not apply to me. And my parents were not enablers. If parents provide a place for a party involving drinking and perhaps drugs, the clear message is that the rules that applied to kids like me did not apply to the preppie. So some preppies decide some other rules also don't apply to them. Not good. And not surprising. Certainly it happens and more often than once in a blue moon.

 

Pinning a girl down on a bed and trying to forcefully remove her clothes? And then what we can surely assume comes next? I'm not prepared to write that off. The cop mentioned above had the right idea. At 17, you are responsible for your actions.

 

I sincerely wish that it had not happened. But it did. That seems pretty close to certain.

 

[hrothgar]

Kavenaugh has apparently led an exemplary adult life. And we will probably never know the "truth" of the situation. Seems to me that it is time to move on.

 

Oh yes, we now have accounts of law professors at Yale "Grooming" their female students when they applied to Kavenaugh for clerkships...

 

Interesting choice of words "grooming"...

You normally see it used when pedophiles are prepping victims for abuse.

[Chas_P]

 

I sincerely wish that it had not happened. But it did. That seems pretty close to certain.

 

I'm waiting to see what undeniable evidence she presents to the committee before rendering judgment.

[ggwhiz]

I find it hilarious that his "character witness" from H.S. is named Judge and wrote a book titled "Wasted" with a character Bart O'Kavenaugh in it.

 

Even funnier is the likes of ldrews wondering if any of this matters to his qualifications for the Supreme Court even if true. With an eye to the midterms and a number of GOP Senators feeling the heat I think you can just about stick a fork in this bozo.