All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Mister Mets]

If I were in the GOP, I'd get rid of Kavanaugh and fast track someone without such a sketchy past. But the GOP are doubling down on this guy, despite everything.

It's a bad look.

The court of public opinion was already not wild about him before these serious allegations. But now?

That's your opinion for the best approach for them strategically, but it doesn't answer the question of what we should advocate for.

The problem is if you take politics out of it you run into the dead end of it’s going to impossible to conclusively determine what happened unless one of the three admits to lying. Nobody was there besides them, nothing was reported, it was apparently never discussed by the alleged victim until several decades after the fact. On that level I do see the point Republicans are making that an FBI investigation will almost exclusively still come down to her testimony vs his and probably will only serve drag it out. It’s 35 years later, I can’t see the possibility at all of any physical evidence existing either on the victim or in the room it happened. Only 3 people were apparently in the room. If it happened it only got to the point of attempted rape, so it’s not like there’s going to be a rape kit or some signs of penetration. And I can imagine you are going to find many witnesses able to corroborate which people were in what rooms at what times at a 30 year old high school party.

Unfortunately I think it’s just coming down to what she says vs what they say and at that point just have an FBI investigator at the testimony to ask relevant questions.

The reality is if the goal is to stop Kavanaugh outright the best bet is too put Ford on a stand to sell her account and let the public decide if they find her credible and force the Republican Senate to die on that hill or nominate someone else.

There is some potential evidence that could come to light. Kavanaugh's reaction and Ms Ford's actions can help tip the scales. We may also learn more about them in the coming week, in addition to people who have had bad experiences with Kavanaugh, or Ms. Ford.

Well, it's clear the GOP is ready and raring to die on their hill for Kavanaugh rather than give Democrats a victory by backing away from the pick. Meanwhile, Bob 'n' Weave Brett won't do the right thing under the circumstances and rescind his nomination, showing to me he lacks the moral center to be a member of SCOTUS. But then, I guess Trump picked Kavanaugh because he lacks morals.

Why is the right thing for Kavanaugh to rescind his nomination? How does this demonstrate a lack of moral center?

My two questions would then be:

1. How likely is this to go to court? Is there a statute of limitations? Would it get by a grand jury? Would a prosecutor want to
Take on a 30 year old allegation?

2. In the highly likely event that it ends up being inconclusive, what do you do? Do you give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt or virebjim as too much of a question mark?

The legal system has a high standard of insisting on guilt beyond on a reasonable doubt, which means that someone who is probably but not certainly guilty should be allowed to be free, so there's definitely the potential for results to be inconclusive.

Another potential problem is that because she doesn't know where the event occurred, the local jurisdiction is unknown.

Just a factoid: Maryland, where this event took place, has no statute of limitations for rape or attempted rape.

I am not suggesting that he'll be charged or anything. I think that's unlikely, just that the statue of limitations isn't something that'll play a role in justice or lack thereof.

This is like a combo of Bork and Thomas at the moment. The latter for the sexual nature bringing his nomination into question, the former because of Kavanaugh's background as a "dirty tricks" member of the GOP attacking the Clintons as part of Starr's investigations and trying to link Hillary Clinton to Vince Foster's suicide, and that he might not get voted in after all is said and done.

I mean, Harriet Miers was poorly vetted by Bush 43, but she withdrew her own nomination before going to a hearing, unlike Kavanaugh, who was hoping Grassley and Co. could ramrod him through before anyone knew any better about him being a drunken attempted rapist.

Man, I don't know if there's a prosecutor with the guts to try a 25 year old attempted rape case under these circumstances. Most don't have the guts to even do it if it happened two days ago under these sorts of circumstances.

I wrote this before, but the blocking of the Miers appointment came from Republicans.

The main issue was that they weren't confident about her views on certain issues. That made her appealing to Democrats, who preferred someone who might end up holding up liberal views to someone with a proven conservative record.

One of the reasons she was nominated by Bush was that she was on a list of potential nominees that Reid said would pass with the support of Democrats.

Here's what the Washington Post reported at the time she withdrew her nomination.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, called on Bush to name a consensus candidate, while chastising him for giving in to the demands of conservative activists. "The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), who had recommended that Bush consider her for the high court. "Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who would pack the court with rigid ideologues."

It's a Trek Joke

Q has almost always been Anti-Authoritarian and Pro Freedom as opposed to the fascist Q Continuum.

538 has found it to be quite accurate, and very slightly Democratic-leaning.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/