Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

[Chris Craig]

You’ve not been a hiring manager before, have you? Not being snarky, but there is waaaaay more that goes into it than that. You have to be able to justify it to at least a potential arbiter or mediator WHY any particular individual (especially after interviews) wasn’t chosen.

I don’t think, in this case, his Cv allows you to do that. Ergo, not a job interview. Not saying it’s not worth investigating, but you don’t get it both ways.

I have been. And I have never done that. But, it happens all the time.

 

[yankeesince59]

If the employer knows about it your not gonna get hired

...thank you.

...the reason someone doesn't hire you vs the reason they may tell you that they didn't hire you are two different things...all they have to say is "You did not meet our criteria".

 

[BrianFromWA]

You’ve seen someone denied a job because of something outside the qualifications? Their sex or race or religious persuasion? Their past record?

 

[CupWizier]

I missed where Kavanaugh brought up his HS party record without prompting.

You also misunderstood my post as I was responding to the hypothetical that you claim was illegal. Is it illegal for a prospective employee to bring it up as that was the case in the hypothetical.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Back to the story...

I think it’s interesting that the Ds signed up to a 1-week “investigation”. The FBI is either gonna throw someone like Strozk at this to toss chum in the water, or they’re going to come up with similar findings that we already know.

One part that has been discussed is that the “believable” Dr has a lack of detail in many of her allegations. Fair enough...I barely remember what day I graduated, much less any parties the cool kids may have gone to. But the thing she DID bring up with specifics...the 2012 home renovation with 2 front doors, happened in 2007, per permits. Using Sen. “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal’s metrics, what are we supposed to think?
Personally, I also think the Ds miscalculated the level of anal retentiveness of a dude that kept 40 yrs worth of calendars to refute stuff like this.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You also misunderstood my post as I was responding to the hypothetical that you claim was illegal. Is it illegal for a prospective employee to bring it up as that was the case in the hypothetical.

You’re not allowed to take stuff like that into account. I don’t know how to say it clearer than that. Labor laws are pretty cut and dried, and not in favor of companies.

 

[Further]

- been swamped today - is there a date set for a full senate vote?

 

[Shaboid]

You’re not allowed to take stuff like that into account. I don’t know how to say it clearer than that. Labor laws are pretty cut and dried, and not in favor of companies.

I may be confused, but it sounds like you're saying, "being accused of sexual misconduct or assault" is some sort of protected class. Sincere question, because I've never heard that before. Sex, age, ethnicity, sure.

I may just be misunderstanding but I can imagine potential employees get turned down due to questionable character all the time. I've done a little bit of hiring and I put more stock into past managers opinions and personal references than what someone can lie about on their resume. Idk, it can be a tough call.

All I'll say is if I was looking for a psychiatrist I probably wouldn't choose Dr. Ford. If I was looking for an honest judge, I probably wouldn't choose Kavanaugh. But that's just me.

 

[CupWizier]

You’re not allowed to take stuff like that into account. I don’t know how to say it clearer than that. Labor laws are pretty cut and dried, and not in favor of companies.

So are you saying if I voluntarily give up information they can't decide not to hire me? I find that hard to believe.

 

[dviss1]

Seems like if ever there was a "nuclear option" time, it's now, right? I mean, assume the R's do whatever they need to do to get Kavanaugh in. Even if the Blue Wave does materialize this fall (I have my doubts, but whatever), they can't vote him and Gorsuch out. So then they're stuck hoping that somehow Breyer and RBG both outlive/outwork Thomas and Alito, or else it's 5-2/5-3 until Trump gets his next pick (likely a compromise candidate, but what the F*** does that look like in "scorched earth politics mode"?) and even if a D wins in 2020 keeping the SEnate they can only get back to a 5-4 deficit.

It's not like I'm being original in this. This scenario has likely been Fear #1 of the D's since Kennedy retired. They tried to filibuster Gorsuch (for an old, fake plagiarism matter, iirc), but this is it for them for the next generation or so. Knowing that every step towards the Bright New Future can be struck down for the next generation for unconstitutionality is a powerful motivator for people (and especially politicians) to do all manner of sordid things.

@dviss1 , it's interesting to me that you think the D's are not being cutthroat or playing in the mud. By my (admittedly not-as-up-to-speed-as-many count), the R's/Trump have:
a) started to do Presidential bidding through Executive Orders when he couldn't get congressional support (see: DACA and Obama's "so sue me" comment)
b) held up the nomination of a SC judge in an election year (according to McConnell/Grassley's invocation of the Biden Rule)
c) placed Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court (by McConnell invoking the Harry Reid Option)
...basically, using the low-down-dirty political tricks of the Democrats against them. In a way McConnell predicted. And in a way that Harry Reid still stands by.

If they were being cut throat they would've done what Obama and Harry Reid SHOULD'VE done at the very beginning of his presidency:

Get rid of the filibuster, COMPLETELY.

Then republicans wouldn't leave been able to have blocked SHIT and we'd have single payer healthcare right now.

But democrats must like to lose.

 

[dviss1]

I challenge anyone to watch this and say they believe Kavanaugh:

CHALLENGE!

 

[dviss1]

That is a tough question, D.

I tend to believe both.

I think that she believes what she is saying. I believe that she was is a situation like she described. I think she honestly thinks that it was Brett. I also believe that she is mistaken.

As to Brett, I have to believe the evidence provided and his integrity he has lived his life by. I do not believe that he was the guy that did the deed.

You can't have it both ways. He's saying it never happened. They can't BOTH be telling the truth. Watch the video with Sheldon Whitehouse.

Just watch it man... Imagine it being you questioning him about YOUR daughter.

Are you satisfied with his answers to those questions if you'd have asked them?

 

[BrianFromWA]

If they were being cut throat they would've done what Obama and Harry Reid SHOULD'VE done at the very beginning of his presidency:

Get rid of the filibuster, COMPLETELY.

Then republicans wouldn't leave been able to have blocked SHIT and we'd have single payer healthcare right now.

I see where you're going, and I think it would've been struck down anyway. That's why I'm not super-worried about if Hillary or Kamala or ??? becomes President (or Trump for that matter). They're not going to turn the country socialist. They're not going to take any guns. He's not going to set up concentration camps or induce segregation. I have faith in the court to stay non-progressive.

 

[julius]

I challenge anyone to watch this and say they believe Kavanaugh:

CHALLENGE!

I already know how 4-5 posters here will respond.

 

[barfo]

I may be confused, but it sounds like you're saying, "being accused of sexual misconduct or assault" is some sort of protected class. Sincere question, because I've never heard that before. Sex, age, ethnicity, sure.

I too am confused by exactly what it is that Brian is saying can't be taken into account when hiring.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

You can't have it both ways. He's saying it never happened. They can't BOTH be telling the truth. Watch the video with Sheldon Whitehouse. Just watch it man...

But what's the charge? "At some point, in a place and time I don't remember, 36 years ago, when one or both of us may or may not have been drunk (but not "blackout drunk"), he sexually assaulted me"?
He already said that at no time did he assault her. The people she said witnessed it said they didn't witness anything. The "trigger" for her seeing a therapist (the "PTSD" from 2012 causing her to have 2 front doors installed) is, at least per basic investigation into permits, 5 years off and made for a rental entrance. She said he doesn't fly, and yet flew all over the place for polygraphs, vacations, etc.
I sympathize with the plight of women who've been abused and assaulted...when I ask similar questions to this on my FB page I get a lot of responses from women who have actual, verifiable stories of horror who've been forced silent over the years. So many that it's heartbreaking to me. Not just for their loss, but because "society" (be it their family, their school, their church, law enforcement, the courts) let them down and in many cases allowed the perpetrator to continue onto other victims. You guys know me...I've been very outspoken that I'm in favor of the death penalty for rape. If there were allegations that could even remotely be justified, I'm all for consequences coming down harshly.

I also have enough memory to realize that the Duke Lacrosse Team got
Brian Banks spent 5 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
Look up Nikki Yovino. Or farther back (I had to look up the name, but "fake rape new york garbage bag kkk" search came up) Tawana Brawley

Having 2 X chromosomes doesn't compel one to truth any more than anyone else. By all means investigate (I think that 3 weeks of all this has answered some questions and shown that some answers aren't there), but all the "I'm with her" folks still have yet to show me how any of her story holds water.

 

[barfo]

Back to the story...

I think it’s interesting that the Ds signed up to a 1-week “investigation”. The FBI is either gonna throw someone like Strozk at this to toss chum in the water

I don't think they are going to assign a counterespionage expert, but maybe I'm wrong.

, or they’re going to come up with similar findings that we already know.

That's one possibility, but I don't see how it is a foregone conclusion.

But the thing she DID bring up with specifics...the 2012 home renovation with 2 front doors, happened in 2007, per permits.

I don't think this is at odds with her testimony:

The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

Getting therapy isn't a requirement for getting a building permit (maybe it should be), you can do the therapy later, even years after the work is done.

Personally, I also think the Ds miscalculated the level of anal retentiveness of a dude that kept 40 yrs worth of calendars to refute stuff like this.

Nobody puts 'got really drunk and tried to rape a girl' on their calendar. It refutes nothing, and potentially gives the FBI some leads to work with.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I too am confused by exactly what it is that Brian is saying can't be taken into account when hiring.

barfo

ANything other than qualifications for that position. A quick google search shows CA laws (even if Kavanaugh would've been arrested for this, it can't be brought up in an interview or as an item "taken into account when hiring." Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that

Title VII prohibits employers from using policies or practices that screen individuals based on criminal history information if: They do not help the employer accurately decide if the person is likely to be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee.

One would likely be able to reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's post-1981-or-so resume shows he would be a responsible, reliable and safe judge. that's IF he had been charged and convicted, much less had some hearsay about it.

Again, I'm not saying don't look at the personal history of Supreme Court nominees. I'm saying to call this a "job interview" means that you can't. So let's just stop that.

 

[CupWizier]

But what's the charge? "At some point, in a place and time I don't remember, 36 years ago, when one or both of us may or may not have been drunk (but not "blackout drunk"), he sexually assaulted me"?
He already said that at no time did he assault her. The people she said witnessed it said they didn't witness anything. The "trigger" for her seeing a therapist (the "PTSD" from 2012 causing her to have 2 front doors installed) is, at least per basic investigation into permits, 5 years off and made for a rental entrance. She said he doesn't fly, and yet flew all over the place for polygraphs, vacations, etc.
I sympathize with the plight of women who've been abused and assaulted...when I ask similar questions to this on my FB page I get a lot of responses from women who have actual, verifiable stories of horror who've been forced silent over the years. So many that it's heartbreaking to me. Not just for their loss, but because "society" (be it their family, their school, their church, law enforcement, the courts) let them down and in many cases allowed the perpetrator to continue onto other victims. You guys know me...I've been very outspoken that I'm in favor of the death penalty for rape. If there were allegations that could even remotely be justified, I'm all for consequences coming down harshly.

I also have enough memory to realize that the Duke Lacrosse Team got
Brian Banks spent 5 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
Look up Nikki Yovino. Or farther back (I had to look up the name, but "fake rape new york garbage bag kkk" search came up) Tawana Brawley

Having 2 X chromosomes doesn't compel one to truth any more than anyone else. By all means investigate (I think that 3 weeks of all this has answered some questions and shown that some answers aren't there), but all the "I'm with her" folks still have yet to show me how any of her story holds water.

she said she doesn't like to fly, not that she won't fly. My wife is the same way but has flown many times when we would fly out of state to go to some of our kids soccer tournaments. As for memory, it makes perfect sense as I can remember many details when I was around 5 years old and visiting my aunt and uncle in Corvallis who had a farm. They had a rooster that terrorized us kids and we would have to calculate how quickly we could get from the back door to the barn and jump on a hay bale so that the roster couldn't get us. I remember many of the details but there are also details I don't remember. I also vividly remember it's name but ask me what I did 3 weeks ago on Thursday and I will struggle to remember it. Traumatic events have a way of sticking with you.

 

[CupWizier]

ANything other than qualifications for that position. A quick google search shows CA laws (even if Kavanaugh would've been arrested for this, it can't be brought up in an interview or as an item "taken into account when hiring." Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that
One would likely be able to reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's post-1981-or-so resume shows he would be a responsible, reliable and safe judge. that's IF he had been charged and convicted, much less had some hearsay about it.

Again, I'm not saying don't look at the personal history of Supreme Court nominees. I'm saying to call this a "job interview" means that you can't. So let's just stop that.

What does California law have to do with anything?

 

[barfo]

ANything other than qualifications for that position. A quick google search shows CA laws (even if Kavanaugh would've been arrested for this, it can't be brought up in an interview or as an item "taken into account when hiring." Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that
One would likely be able to reasonably conclude that Kavanaugh's post-1981-or-so resume shows he would be a responsible, reliable and safe judge. that's IF he had been charged and convicted, much less had some hearsay about it.

Again, I'm not saying don't look at the personal history of Supreme Court nominees. I'm saying to call this a "job interview" means that you can't. So let's just stop that.

I would say any sex crime would be legitimately considered under the criteria you list 'responsible, reliable, or safe employee', unless maybe you were hiring for a work-at-home position.

Also, CA is significantly more strict than other states about employee rights.

Also, the point of people saying it's a job interview is to contrast it with a criminal proceeding, not to say it follows exactly the same process as a hiring process (he's already a federal employee, so a better comparison would be a job promotion decision, not a hiring decision).

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't think they are going to assign a counterespionage expert, but maybe I'm wrong.

I meant "biased, already had a goal in mind when the investigation started" Strozk analogue, not a counterespionage "expert".

That's one possibility, but I don't see how it is a foregone conclusion.

You have a lot more faith in the FBI's week's work than I, but I agree--just one possibility.

Getting therapy isn't a requirement for getting a building permit (maybe it should be), you can do the therapy later, even years after the work is done.

I think that my point is (without getting too Monday-morning QB or Perry Mason) that setting up a second door in a remodel for rental purposes makes sense. Talking to a psychiatrist about it years later (or mixing up the dates, I'll submit is a possibility) and not dropping names, but talking about witnesses (who deny it) and saying that it's not for rentals, it's for PTSD, about the time that he became a Circuit Judge, seems like there's something else to the story.

Nobody puts 'got really drunk and tried to rape a girl' on their calendar. It refutes nothing, and potentially gives the FBI some leads to work with. barfo

Fair enough, but nobody puts "went to sleep early because I didn't get invited to the cool kids' party" on the calendar, either. And I'd submit that, up until a week ago, you may have said "nobody details the shit out of their high school life and holds onto it for 40 years", either. But I think it's telling that he has things like workouts and practice on there, and not a lot of parties (based on what very little I saw...I could be wrong on that). I don't think anyone on the Judiciary Committee had any idea there would BE calendars. For sure Dr. Ford doesn't have any.

 

[BrianFromWA]

she said she doesn't like to fly, not that she won't fly. My wife is the same way but has flown many times when we would fly out of state to go to some of our kids soccer tournaments. As for memory, it makes perfect sense as I can remember many details when I was around 5 years old and visiting my aunt and uncle in Corvallis who had a farm. They had a rooster that terrorized us kids and we would have to calculate how quickly we could get from the back door to the barn and jump on a hay bale so that the roster couldn't get us. I remember many of the details but there are also details I don't remember. I also vividly remember it's name but ask me what I did 3 weeks ago on Thursday and I will struggle to remember it. Traumatic events have a way of sticking with you.

That's kind of the point, right? She doesn't remember any details, except that the ones she does (that don't involve the names Kavanaugh and/or Judge) have been wrong.

 

[BrianFromWA]

What does California law have to do with anything?

Because I said it's illegal to ask these things in interviews, and Barfo asked specifically what for.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I would say any sex crime would be legitimately considered under the criteria you list 'responsible, reliable, or safe employee', unless maybe you were hiring for a work-at-home position.

It's odd that this is the place where you become the bastion of law and order But having an exemplary work record for 40 years, including multiple background investigations and "promotions" to higher courts? No, I don't think an arbiter would pass that a 40y/o allegation allows you to discriminate. But as you said, this isn't a job interview. One down!

 

[BrianFromWA]

she said she doesn't like to fly, not that she won't fly. My wife is the same way but has flown many times when we would fly out of state to go to some of our kids soccer tournaments. As for memory, it makes perfect sense as I can remember many details when I was around 5 years old and visiting my aunt and uncle in Corvallis who had a farm. They had a rooster that terrorized us kids and we would have to calculate how quickly we could get from the back door to the barn and jump on a hay bale so that the roster couldn't get us. I remember many of the details but there are also details I don't remember. I also vividly remember it's name but ask me what I did 3 weeks ago on Thursday and I will struggle to remember it. Traumatic events have a way of sticking with you.

I would submit that the analogue to your story is that if you said all those things, and your aunt and uncle said "not only did we never have a farm, but cupwizier never even came to our house." Your rooster story, while believable (I've heard plenty of "mean rooster" stories, including on my at-the-time 2y/o) would be total bullshit.

 

[Propagandist]

Kavanaugh drinking buddy says Kavanaugh commited purjury in the senate judiciary committees hearing. Done.

Just when I think things can't get weirder. There's a sense in the air like a dam is going to rupture. What a strange time to be an American.

 

[Propagandist]

Back to the story...

I think it’s interesting that the Ds signed up to a 1-week “investigation”. The FBI is either gonna throw someone like Strozk at this to toss chum in the water, or they’re going to come up with similar findings that we already know.

One part that has been discussed is that the “believable” Dr has a lack of detail in many of her allegations. Fair enough...I barely remember what day I graduated, much less any parties the cool kids may have gone to. But the thing she DID bring up with specifics...the 2012 home renovation with 2 front doors, happened in 2007, per permits. Using Sen. “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal’s metrics, what are we supposed to think?
Personally, I also think the Ds miscalculated the level of anal retentiveness of a dude that kept 40 yrs worth of calendars to refute stuff like this.

The other D (dick) to the face is going to be corroborated first, I'm guessing. Seems like witnesses (in theory) would abound in that story.

Also, I think his calendar will be his downfall in regards to Ford. That "ski" ie brewski theory seems sound. All the players she mentioned are right there on the page.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I may be confused, but it sounds like you're saying, "being accused of sexual misconduct or assault" is some sort of protected class. Sincere question, because I've never heard that before. Sex, age, ethnicity, sure.

I may just be misunderstanding but I can imagine potential employees get turned down due to questionable character all the time. I've done a little bit of hiring and I put more stock into past managers opinions and personal references than what someone can lie about on their resume. Idk, it can be a tough call.

I'm intrigued by this. Legally, all a past work reference (not a personal one, but those generally aren't negative) can say is "yes, so-and-so worked here during this time period in this position, with this job description." A lot of people state that they can ask old employers about strengths and weaknesses, performance, etc. They can't say "and got poor performance ratings," Or "but stole from the coffee and snack counter", Or "always took Milton's cake," without opening themselves up to defamation suits, which generally go the way of the worker (at least as far as I've seen, and 2 HR departments have advised. YMMV).

All I'll say is if I was looking for a psychiatrist I probably wouldn't choose Dr. Ford. If I was looking for an honest judge, I probably wouldn't choose Kavanaugh. But that's just me.

That's fair. What did you think of Thomas and Sotomayor?

 

[BrianFromWA]

The other D (dick) to the face is going to be corroborated first, I'm guessing. Seems like witnesses (in theory) would abound in that story..

Yeah, that's gonna be interesting. The timing of the allegations (especially with Feinstein holding on to them so long) seemed off. I mean, Ford comes out with her story of groping and drunken assault, and starts a whole bunch of (on Kavanaugh's side) "we stand with him, he's never done that kind of thing, we weren't even there" stuff. Then the D-in-the-face allegation comes out and people say "we've never even heard rumors that this stuff happened." Then a woman with a history of defamation lawsuits and restraining orders says that he's a participant in multiple train-gang rapes. Yet none of those participants, victims, onlookers, etc. ever brought up any of that in the past. Is the expectation that someone says "I never said anything because you only asked about drunken groping and penis waving. But if we're talking train-rapes? Hell yeah he did that shit, and I was there!"?

Put a different way...if he WAS completely innocent, and these women were doing the equivalent of the Tawana Brawley story, how would you expect him to fight it?