Avenatti claims to rep a different person.
There's 4 at this point
1) Dr. Ford
2) The woman from the New Yorker piece (from Yale)
3) Avenatti's client
4) New report mentioned in the Montogomery County Sentinel that is under investigation
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Avenatti claims to rep a different person.
There's 4 at this point
1) Dr. Ford
2) The woman from the New Yorker piece (from Yale)
3) Avenatti's client
4) New report mentioned in the Montogomery County Sentinel that is under investigation
Pardon my ignorance. I don't understand why you think my argument is a textbook strawman argument. The classic strawman argument, as I understand it, is to make a very weak case for the opposing viewpoint and then tear it down pretending that the actual opposing case has been destroyed as well. The argument that Wittes makes in his piece is that K should withdraw or be withdrawn because he will never be able to establish his credibility given the allegations. I interpret that not as an argument that K should withdraw because it is in his interest but that because withdrawal is better for the country.
Short of impeachment, he's still got his job on the DC Circuit bench. Not a bad gig.
But he will be a pariah with everyone: other judges, staffs and attorneys-not good for Brett.
That'd turn out to be a hollow victory, though. Think he'd get the plum Ct. of Appeals opinions, what with the allegations he would implicitly admit to if he were to withdraw his nomination? Nope. What about his appearance on any panel hearing a sexual harassment case . . . the decision becomes automatically tainted.
He'd be there to collect a check, but for a guy like Kavanaugh . . . I'd bet that wouldn't be much of a career. And Nationals tickets aren't going to get any cheaper, you know . . . .
From his perspective, I agree 100%. What I'm struggling with is why the Republicans (Trump) are continuing this. It seems a no-win for the party, so why not withdraw his name and move on? It's not solely Kavanaugh's decision. What is to be gained by riding this horse out the the inevitable finish?
I don't believe we'll hear testimony. I think one way or another this nomination ends by Tuesday.
Avenatti? You mean Mini-Trump? What's wrong with Trump's Guy vs. Mini-Trump's Gal? Sounds like pay-for-view heaven.
Evangelical leaders were reported last week as prodding McConnell to get Kava through or else there's no reason for Evangelicals to go to the polls in November.
McConnell doesn't give a rat's ass about Kavanaugh, he's busy fighting for his position as the Senate majority leader.
No, Farrow and Mayer have the second accuser. Avenatti has the third. And now there’s a fourth.
Because Trump wants it. I’d be willing to bet Mitch and everyone else is trying to convince them to withdraw.
Trump continues for two reasons. 1) Always deny, deny, deny. If Kava sticks this out, he's trusting Trump's MO. 2) He's firing up his base for the election.
Withdrawing would be considered a defeat, something Trump is loathe to do. Additionally, Kavanaugh's positions on the unitary executive, giving the executive nearly unlimited power, would serve Trump well if/when any Mueller investigation related questions come before the Court. This isn't about the party or the country or the Court; this is about Trump himself.
A few years ago, I participated in local politics. Both my wife and I enjoyed campaigning, but we learned some very important lessons about politics. Lessons that caused us to end any involvement in politics (other than voting). We saw a number of very good and qualified people lose races to total incompetents. A candidate's qualifications meant absolutely nothing.
At one campaign event my wife intently listened to a candidate speak. She then turned to me with wide eyes and innocently exclaimed, "that man's an idiot." It was actually a major understatement. All I could say in return was, "Yes he is dear, yes he sure is." Of course he got the nomination.
We also saw people spend huge sums of money (at least to us) to get the backing of people who could influence a primary election. We watched People continually misrepresent their backgrounds, their achievements, and their qualifications for office.
The point I would make is this. After what I saw politicians do to get elected at the local level, I can only imagine what a politician vying for a national position would be willing to do. I do not think the tactics we saw are limited to one party or the other. I think the problem is endemic to politics.
Politicians are a product of the system that produces them. The system is terribly flawed so, in turn, many politicians are terrible flawed. The one thing I am sure of is that their terms need to be limited and some how we need to get people in office that will work for us and not for the system of which they are a part.
My sense is that the GOP (a) wants what it wants, which is another Roman Catholic* on the bench who is (i) committed to overturning Roe, and (ii) who is committed to an imperial presidency, and (b) has long undertaken the position that anything that looks like compromise, much less capitulation, is a sign of weakness that cannot be tolerated.
*Has the Federalist Society featured any nominee who isn't a Roman Catholic? I'm not concerned about having Roman Catholics nominated by the GOP . . . but I am concerned that it seems only Roman Catholics are nominated by the GOP.
From another perspective, why are no mainstream or evangelical Christians among nominees any more by either party? Have those two groups effectively canceled each other out from a political influence perspective that neither will "allow" the other to have a candidate confirmed?
I just don't get why we have such limited diversity on the Court.
Overheard just now from inside the Kavanaugh defense bunker:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did."
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did."
Practicing Catholic may be viewed as prima facia evidence for an anti-abortion mind set.
As for fundamentalist/evangelicals, I suspect there are fewer of those in the pipeline. How many of them go to Yale/Harvard/etc.?
Overheard just now from inside the Kavanaugh defense bunker:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did."
Thought about this same scene at lunch today....kind of hoping that Kavanaugh pulls this on Thursday.
"Well, you can do what you want to us....but we're not going to sit here and let you bad mouth the United States of America"
Last edited:
Catholics and Jews enter the legal profession at a much higher rate than Protestants, or so I've read.
I think it has to do with the shape of their heads. When Jews' horns recede, they . . . Wait. Which forum is this? Never mind. I've been hacked!
Well, I think at this point.....Kavanaugh is cooked. He can return to the DC COA and commiserate what could have been with Merrick.
That's not too far fetched. Creepers are generally incel in nature and can't find willing partners.
Good point. I was thinking Kava was using a nuanced "I" in "I did not have sexual intercourse." In saying "I" rather than "we," he's saying saying he never had autosex. (It was always rape.)
I find it hard to see how Kavanaugh doesn't commit perjury Thursday.
If he would have been honest at all about his past I might be inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt but most of the facts contradict the fake choir boy image he's created about this time in his life.
Fro, I was not aware that you have personal knowledge regarding Kavanaugh’s veracity. How do you know him? Did you go to school with him? Did you work with him? Were you a law clerk for him? Were you present at one of the alleged events? To be so certain you must have some personal knowledge of him and/or the claimed events. You seem so sure. You must have personal knowledge. You wouldn’t rely on hearsay or uncorroborated accusations....or would you?
He stuck his neck out, that's for sure. He'd better come through, and it better be good. After that performance, he'll be a laughingstock if he doesn't.
Similar threads
