Kavanaugh and his sexual assault allegations

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

Well, these American "womens' issues" people if they get out the vote can spell the difference between Trump for the next two years with or without the HoR and maybe even the Senate. Trump had already bullied Canada with the new free trade deal and he slapped huge tariffs on Canada. 

Whay more crap do you people want from Trump that you feel that we should not listen to because you are too sick of hearing about it?

This is a US election btw. So let's not cover the US election because...it doesn't pertain to us and Trump is just being misrepresented by the media because he really is quite a nice guy at heart.

And bad us for watching and caring about what happens in the next two years south of the border.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Of course as a province of the US empire we should be paying attention to every little thing that happens in the corridors of DC. Personally I still delude myself that we are a sovereign nation and I still hope my public broadcaster would agree. However the CBC over the last decade has embedded the former view in most of their programming. US news is our news, US culture is our culture too etc etc.

As for the US elections, yes if enough women vote for the Democrat's feminist imperialists ala Clinton and Albright, they can get rid of the NAZI's and go back to friendly fascism that hardly impacts the wonderful life we have in Canada.

Misfit Misfit's picture

At least it is a step up from this current crap. Or you can watch Canadian news and get the latest of the Liberal and Conservative destruction of social institutions in Canada. It's destruction but at least it is Canadian, eh?!

NDPP

It has become quite obvious, even on this board, just how powerful and pervasive the US corporate media's determination of agendas and positions is.

We Can't Ignore When CBC Pretends American News is Canadian Reality

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/10/we-cant-ignore-when-cbc-pretends-ame...

"I don't understand why CBC doesn't just disconnect its local operations and flow CNN straight to its viewers..."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thats a great article on Rabble. Rick is channeling my angst extremely well. I do like Murdoch but only because it has great women characters and uses historical facts as a backdrop to its too easily solved murders.

Canada as a country is in a peculiar position. We lack the glues that most nations count on without even knowing it: a unique language, shared history, folkways, even cuisines. In their place, we've relied more than most on a small set of institutions we collectively created: originally the railway, more recently national healthcare and the CBC. I think Canadians instinctively recognize the existential necessity of our institutions. It's why they say they support the CBC as long as they don't have to watch it. I'm with them.

Meantime, is there a cure for CBC's CNNvy? How about this -- whenever it feels an irresistible impulse to funnel CNN, insert Murdoch or Frankie instead.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Misfit wrote:

At least it is a step up from this current crap. Or you can watch Canadian news and get the latest of the Liberal and Conservative destruction of social institutions in Canada. It's destruction but at least it is Canadian, eh?!

Imagine if Canadian voters were educated on Canadian issues. Seems like a good thing compared to educating them on American issues that they are not entitled to vote on.

NDPP

The level of ignorance on domestic and foreign issues is equally appalling. And voracious appetites for the most toxic propaganda nonsense. Just what you would expect from a steady diet of CBC,  WaPo or The Guardian. For instance, there's several major trade treaties that are working their way through the political process towards ratification and yet here it's Trump, Trump Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The CBC and CTV etc., cover Canadian issues all the time. It just so happens that the US is having an election right now which makes it newsworthy as well. If Canadian interest wasn't there the media would not be covering it. Besides, this is a totally different topic in the Kavanaugh thread.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I think we have seen a demonstration of how Trump is relevant to Canada. It is news here and it does affect us.

This takes nothing away from the argument that more coverage is needed on other issues.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I agree with you Sean 100%.

Paladin1

Quote:
 

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Quote:
 

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

 

">https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/[...

It's not one that was being taken seriously. It's unfortunate she undermined the experiences of the other women. In any case it really doesn't matter. He showed himself unfit to be judge in the hearing. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's certainly not going to change anything for Kavanaugh, and probably would not have changed anything even if he had been declined.

But it's a pretty good indicator of just what an obsessive partisan bloodbath U.S. politics has become.

I'll be curious to see what, if anything, comes of this woman being questioned about this -- right now it's just hearsay, but if it's true then this woman is remarkably nonchalant about something that's going to bring a pile of legal troubles her way.

Quote:
It's not one that was being taken seriously.

Did you take it seriously?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's certainly not going to change anything for Kavanaugh, and probably would not have changed anything even if he had been declined.

But it's a pretty good indicator of just what an obsessive partisan bloodbath U.S. politics has become.

I'll be curious to see what, if anything, comes of this woman being questioned about this -- right now it's just hearsay, but if it's true then this woman is remarkably nonchalant about something that's going to bring a pile of legal troubles her way.

Quote:
It's not one that was being taken seriously.

Did you take it seriously?

No I didn't because it was too vague and unlike the other accusations, which isn't to say I thought it wasn't true, just that there wasn't enough to form an opinion on.  Ford and Ramirez had spoken about what happened long before the Kavanaugh hearings and there were witnesses. In my opinion both are telling the truth. Other students from that time agree that Kavanaugh was a party animal and did get blind drunk.

I think Kavanaugh didn't think it was a big deal back then and still doesn't think any of it amounts to assault. He probably thinks of what he did to Ford as rough-housing. I suspect his only intention was to expose her rather than rape her. Waving his penis in a woman's face probably also seemed like just fooling around, no big deal, to a drunken Kavanaugh.

The emailed rape allegation came without details and none were offered even after it became public.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Quote:
 

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

 

">https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/[...

It's not one that was being taken seriously. It's unfortunate she undermined the experiences of the other women. In any case it really doesn't matter. He showed himself unfit to be judge in the hearing. 

Was there some kind of group consensus that her story wasn't legitimate? 

I wouldn't (couldn't) dare suggest a woman's accusation not be taken seriously but you're obviously in a better position to do so.  I wonder what, if any, legal fall out she will face over the admission. Is it safe to suggest that false accusations (further) hurt actual victims in cases of sexual assault?

 

You said he showed himself to be unfit. Why is that? 

quizzical

he showed himself to be unfit by his whiney partisanship.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Quote:
 

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

 

">https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/[...

It's not one that was being taken seriously. It's unfortunate she undermined the experiences of the other women. In any case it really doesn't matter. He showed himself unfit to be judge in the hearing. 

Was there some kind of group consensus that her story wasn't legitimate? 

I wouldn't (couldn't) dare suggest a woman's accusation not be taken seriously but you're obviously in a better position to do so.  I wonder what, if any, legal fall out she will face over the admission. Is it safe to suggest that false accusations (further) hurt actual victims in cases of sexual assault?

You said he showed himself to be unfit. Why is that? 

I don't know that there was a group consensus but it wasn't given much play by the media. I didn't suggest it not be taken seriously I said it wasn't taken seriously in the sense that it didn't get the media play that the other accusations got I assume because of the lack of detail.

This notion that a woman can simply fling an accusation out without any kind of backing and in so doing ruin an innocent man is garbage. It is more the norm to refuse to investigate properly or call witnesses as happened for the Kavanaugh hearing. 

Kavanaugh's behavior and words during the hearings showed him unfit to be a judge nevermind a Supreme Court judge. He showed extreme partisanship and a tendency to believe conspiracy theories in his Clinton rant. He lied under oath unless you believe he was a light drinker in college and all around choirboy. Hopefully he will be impeached.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

he showed himself to be unfit by his whiney partisanship.

Let's not forget the real story behind this. The reason he is unfit is bottom line becuase of his views. His extreme views are out of step with the US majority but a minority holds power there due to the fact that the US does not have fair elections.

Even if he had behaved well during the hearings he woul not ahve been acceptable.

The Republicans are saying the left was seeking a reason to stop him becuase no matter waht they wanted to not beucase of his personal life or behaviour but becuase of the nature of his views. They are right. There is no point tryuing to normalize these views by pretending that those on the left would have been okay if he had not beeb a rapist / rabid partisan etc. The fact that he was proposed by Trump in order to attack the rights of Americans is enough. The problem is the power structure that allows this.

The fact that he was personally vile as well as having vile opinions and views, really is not that much of a surprise and at the end of the day it makes not as much of a difference as the views themselves. It is those views and the reason he is there that will harm the US for decades, even more than his disgusting past.

The truth remains he was a horrible choice and all this other stuff failed to become a reason to stop him. The harm this man will do in this position is exponentially greater than the harm he has been able to do personally. Of course nobody with his history should be a judge anywhere, but nobody with his views ought to have been considered in the first place. I think the republicans would love to hide behind the battle about his personal behaviour in order not to have to really defend just how disgusting his (and their) views actually are.

Pondering

Totally agree Sean. Well said.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

Totally agree Sean. Well said.

Seconded.

quizzical

yup Sean. thanks for having the energy to write it all.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Quiz,

You posted this earlier in this thread. Please reread it.

Your article...

Pondering

Thanks for the repost of Quiz's link Misfit. I somehow missed it the first time around.

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry for the many typos in the last post -- I think I was typing too fast.

I have come to think that there are more lessons in this story and one I think that applies to Canada as well.

We have to always make sure our priorities are laid out in the correct order. But sometimes it is a hard judgment call.

So in the case of this judge, the Democrats, made a very bad judgment call.

I do not mean that they should not have called out the vile personal history of this man. But they implied that the fight was mostly about that. They actually ran away from the argument that they were looking for a technicality to stop him.

Had they instead maintained all through that the main issue was the damage he would do in the future, some of the accusations against them would not have been able to stick.

It is possible to have said he is a vile disgusting person who ought to be completely disqaulified on personal history BUT the greatest reasons to not accept him are the views that he brings to the court -- his vision of law. By going all in on the personal history, they had the debate where the Republicans wanted it -- on the man himself which degraded into a guilt without trial argument about fairness to a person who does not stand before a court.

The more important point (sorry to those so badly treated by him in the past) are the potential millions of women who will come before this misogynist in the future. The fact that they will be denied a fair consideration in his court, the top court in the country, is the bigger question. If the Democrats were going to lose anyway would have been better to go down losing on that one than to go all in on an argument that certainly had merit but was less important and much less easy to prove.

The reason it was less important is actually the whole point that the Democrats failed to make:

The fact that Republicans did not care about this judge's opinions, and were selecting him, in large part, to attack the rights of women, meant that his previous personal attacks on women only made him more qualified and credible to them. His previous attacks on women made him a better candidate for them.

That is the ugly truth. And the last election should have been about that.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Bernie Sanders did exactly as you suggest, Sean.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The fact that Republicans did not care about this judge's opinions, and were selecting him, in large part, to attack the rights of women, meant that his previous personal attacks on women only made him more qualified and credible to them.

Speaking of things "difficult to prove".

Pondering

Trump became president. I don't think fighting based on reason would have done a thing to prevent his confirmation.

Apparently there is a book about him on the way:

https://www.voanews.com/a/publisher-nyt-reporters-work-on-book-about-bre...

Two journalists who helped cover the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh are working on a book about the newest Supreme Court justice.

Portfolio says Wednesday that it has a deal with New York Times reporters Kate Kelly and Robin Pogrebin for "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh."

The publisher says the book will focus on the "many unanswered questions" about Kavanaugh, who faced allegations of sexual harassment and assault stemming from his years in high school and college. Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed in October after he and Christine Blasey Ford, who said that he had attempted to rape her during a party when they were in high school, both spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh denied any wrongdoing.

Pogrebin said in a statement that a "fuller picture" of Kavanaugh was needed.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Bernie Sanders did exactly as you suggest, Sean.

Thanks for posting that. I had not seen it.

ETA -- worth a look.

Hard to see that and say that voting does not make a difference or all the candidates are the same. They are not.

Just becuase you may get outvoted, it does not mean it is not worth voting for something better.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The fact that Republicans did not care about this judge's opinions, and were selecting him, in large part, to attack the rights of women, meant that his previous personal attacks on women only made him more qualified and credible to them.

Speaking of things "difficult to prove".

Actually how about in plain sight?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/06/the-republi...

 

"So let’s be clear about this: Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court precisely because he is all but guaranteed to be a vote to overturn Roe. That isn’t the only reason — he has extremely, even radically conservative views on a whole host of issues — but if there were even an iota of doubt about his position on abortion, he would never have been nominated."

Pages