Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Gunnar]

I wondered how long it would take for someone to come up with a deliberately false accusation that would later be retracted or easily proven false in an attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all other accusations.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I wondered how long it would take for someone to come up with a deliberately false accusation that would later be retracted or easily proven false in an attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all other accusations.

Jeff Catalan, the man who made this accusation, is very, very, very anti-Trump. His Twitter attests to that, and unless the GOP is playing some sort of 5th-level chess here, hired Jeff Catalan to post anti-Trump screeds before the Kavanaugh nomination, and then hired him to make a false rape allegation, and then floated the idea that they themselves hired Catalan so the other accusers look better, just to sow discord, your soft accusation probably isn't true.

That would be the fifth rape allegation against Kavanaugh. Just so we're tracking. An anonymous individual, this time from Denver, alleged Kavanaugh "shoved" someone up against a wall "very aggressively and sexually" during an outing in front of four witnesses in 1998. This letter was sent to a Republican Senator's the 22nd. If you want to play the hand you suggested above is being played, THIS is the way to do it. Note the response from Kavanaugh:

"We're dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend," Kavanaugh told committee investigators asking about the alleged episode. "It's ridiculous. Total Twilight Zone. And no, I've never done anything like that.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I wondered how long it would take for someone to come up with a deliberately false accusation that would later be retracted or easily proven false in an attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all other accusations.

Jeff Catalan, the man who made this accusation, is very, very, very anti-Trump. His Twitter attests to that, and unless the GOP is playing some sort of 5th-level chess here, hired Jeff Catalan to post anti-Trump screeds before the Kavanaugh nomination, and then hired him to make a false rape allegation, and then floated the idea that they themselves hired Catalan so the other accusers look better, just to sow discord, your soft accusation probably isn't true.

That would be the fifth rape allegation against Kavanaugh. Just so we're tracking. An anonymous individual, this time from Denver, alleged Kavanaugh "shoved" someone up against a wall "very aggressively and sexually" during an outing in front of four witnesses in 1998. This letter was sent to a Republican Senator's the 22nd. If you want to play the hand you suggested above is being played, THIS is the way to do it. Note the response from Kavanaugh:

"We're dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend," Kavanaugh told committee investigators asking about the alleged episode. "It's ridiculous. Total Twilight Zone. And no, I've never done anything like that.

- Doc

Republicans released those frivioulous allegations, including making sure to point out the details you are describing, for a reason.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Republicans released those frivioulous allegations, including making sure to point out the details you are describing, for a reason.

Sure. I can see that. They're also in an awkward spot if they don't release those accusations they'll be accused of hiding them. No doubt it benefited their position to release them, though.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Republicans released those frivioulous allegations, including making sure to point out the details you are describing, for a reason.

Sure. I can see that. They're also in an awkward spot if they don't release those accusations they'll be accused of hiding them. No doubt it benefited their position to release them, though.

- Doc

What's telling for me is that the transcript with Kavanaugh deliberately included going into unnecessary detail about how implausible the allegations were in the form of "Did you know..." phrasing. We know about the moonbat details not because of an independent release of that information, but because they were imbedded in questions to Kavanaugh that Republicans knew they were going to deliberately release. That to me reads as trying to muddy the waters by making allegations in general seem frivolous.

At first blush, I think it is fair to say that Democrats could try to say that Republicans are burying other anonymous allegations out there if Republicans don't get out ahead of them, but think about it. Imagine Democrats do that and Republicans then offer the known details about those allegations. Who ends up looking bad there?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Imagine Democrats do that and Republicans then offer the known details about those allegations. Who ends up looking bad there?

Well. I think at this point it's getting so nuanced, the parsing out of details or dissecting an allegation, that it's beyond most people's ability to not only follow it, but they'd develop a sort of 'allegation fatigue'. Maybe that's the angle that the Republicans are going for. I don't know.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Imagine Democrats do that and Republicans then offer the known details about those allegations. Who ends up looking bad there?

Well. I think at this point it's getting so nuanced, the parsing out of details or dissecting and allegation, that it's beyond most people's ability to not only follow it, but they'd develop a sort of 'allegation fatigue'. Maybe that's the angle that the Republicans are going for. I don't know.

- Doc

I think that's a fair point. I may have gotten caught up in what an informed person will think. Think of Clinton email stories. I think to the average person, a lot of the wikileaks stories simply read as, "Another shady Clinton email story!" without any thought or concern over what that story actually was. It's possible that more anonymous accusation stories could be read by by large segments of the public as simply, "Another accusation!"

To that, though, I think it's important to also keep in mind that the relationship between current public opinion and whether Kavanaugh gets confirmed is tenuous. He'd already be done if this was just a matter of taking the temperature of public opinion.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

To that, though, I think it's important to also keep in mind that the relationship between current public opinion and whether Kavanaugh gets confirmed is tenuous. He'd already be done if this was just a matter of taking the temperature of public opinion.

I'm currently watching the dog and pony show, and I was just thinking, "If I had to choose between Kavanaugh and Barrett, who would I pick? Which one is less dangerous to liberal values and individual liberties?"

I think she gets through the nomination and confirmation pretty quickly. Like. Three weeks. In fact, I think McConnell's choice for the Supreme Court gets through pretty quick, too. I don't know. Whatever. The Republicans are going to get another one on the court so I'm not sure, like you mentioned before, that it makes that much of a difference, anyway.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I think we've already crossed the Rubicon in that this whole affair is going to pour gasoline on the fire if Kavanaugh ends up being the deciding vote in overturning or crippling Roe. That already was going to be an explosive event, but too many people think there's a good chance the man personally violated women. I'd be surprised if it doesn't provoke a legitimacy crisis among Democrats. 4 of the 5 votes for that will have been appointed by Presidents who didn't win the popular vote and took the presidency in murky circumstances. 1 of the votes is because Republicans engaged in shady Constitutional hardball in denying Obama an appointment. And now there's this on top of it. I think the monomaniacal focus on abortion for the Supreme Court is short sighted, but Democrats are going to lose their god damn mind over it.

Roberts, who is known to care a great deal about the credibility of the Court, might flip his vote over anticipating that.

The damage is done, and it's pure stubborness not to go with someone who will vote just like Kavanaugh without the baggage.

[_Xenophon]

The damage is done, and it's pure stubborness not to go with someone who will vote just like Kavanaugh without the baggage.

This is the part that has seemed the strangest as the week has gone on. Unless Ford outright admits that she made the whole thing up today I think the vote count is on shaky grounds, at best. I wouldn't imagine that McConnell and CO would want to hold a vote that might wind up looking like the Obamacare fiasco so soon before midterms. I don't doubt that they would do a lame-duck appointment (assuming they do lose) but every day they delay moving to the new candidate makes that a less likely scenario, even if it is still highly probable.