[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-16, 15:26, said:

Seems there is more impeachment talk in the air:

A New York Times investigation into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s time at Yale University has uncovered another allegation of sexual misconduct that was previously unreported. Max Stier, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh in the 1980s, reportedly said he saw Kavanaugh with his pants down at a dorm party where his friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Stier notified senators and the FBI about the incident but it was not investigated, according to the Times, which cited two officials who have spoken to Stier about his account

Does anyone other than me find this description a bit odd? I have never wanted to push someone else's penis anywhere, my friends have not expressed any interest in pushing my penis anywhere. and just how they would push it into a woman's had seems like a mystery. And painful even if it could be done.


I am not saying that nothing happened, but I would hope for a description that seems more plausible.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2019-September-17, 06:21, said:

Does anyone other than me find this description a bit odd? I have never wanted to push someone else's penis anywhere, my friends have not expressed any interest in pushing my penis anywhere. and just how they would push it into a woman's had seems like a mystery. And painful even if it could be done.


I am not saying that nothing happened, but I would hope for a description that seems more plausible.

Having some experience with Princeton eating club culture back in the 80s, , I do not find this surprising

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-17, 06:21, said:

Does anyone other than me find this description a bit odd? I have never wanted to push someone else's penis anywhere, my friends have not expressed any interest in pushing my penis anywhere. and just how they would push it into a woman's had seems like a mystery. And painful even if it could be done.


I am not saying that nothing happened, but I would hope for a description that seems more plausible.

It sounds to me as if you did not spend much if any time around a bunch of drunken fraternity brothers. And that the woman who was the supposed target can't remember sounds to me like she might have been equally drunk instead of forgetful, which would help explain why she did not want to answer questions.

When I was a senior in high school, I was courted by a number of the fraternities at the University of Oklahoma. One night I dropped in with a date on a frat party during "rush week" and from that brief experience developed the idea that the movie Animal House was only a slight exaggeration.

The frat boys had arranged a very drunk and very willing girl as my "date" for the night, and when they saw I had brought someone offered instead the use of a private room for the evening. About the only thing missing was Otis Day and the Knights.

[Winstonm]

If this is accurate, it is a damning assessment of the investigation into Kavanaugh. From the WaPo editorial board:

Quote

....federal agents interviewed none of the two dozen people who Ms. Ramirez said could bolster her story and ignored an allegation of a second episode of drunken misbehavior.

This investigative shoddiness was apparently the fault not of the FBI but of Republicans looking for the cover Mr. Flake had claimed he did not want. At first, they limited the FBI to questioning only four people about two separate allegations. Agents eventually got an expansion of the number of people they could contact — they interviewed 10 — but not an extension of their deadline: a mere week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) insisted that the Senate would vote within days. Under these pressures and limitations, the FBI interviewed few and turned in its report early.

And this from Slate:

Quote

But the real sin unearthed by the excerpt isn’t that there was a second account, that another former Yale student allegedly remembers seeing Brett Kavanaugh behave in disturbing and inappropriate ways. The real sin is that this former student, Max Stier, went to Delaware Sen. Chris Coons and then the leadership of the Senate, way back in the fall of 2018, to try to tell them what he remembered. And the real sin is that the FBI never investigated it. Indeed, the FBI didn’t talk to any of the 25 individuals given to them by Debbie Ramirez’s lawyer, or any of the multiple witnesses who came forward to the FBI of their own volition (including a former roommate who believed Ramirez and published his own account of Kavanaugh’s college behavior in Slate). But the FBI didn’t talk to these people because the FBI never even spoke to Brett Kavanaugh about the alleged events. The FBI never spoke to Christine Blasey Ford, either. The FBI did interview Ramirez last October and found her “credible,” but then just left it at that. According to the new reporting, an agent told her lawyers that “We have to wait to get authorization to do anything else.” They did not get that authorization, and they did nothing else.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2019-September-17, 06:21, said:

Does anyone other than me find this description a bit odd? I have never wanted to push someone else's penis anywhere, my friends have not expressed any interest in pushing my penis anywhere. and just how they would push it into a woman's had seems like a mystery. And painful even if it could be done.
[color=#1C2837][size=2]

I also never wanted to rape someone, or even sexually harass someone, but I understand that it goes on quite a bit, especially by drunk frat boys.

I've never told anyone before (not even my family), but when I was a child my father would sometimes take me to work (a family-owned wholesaling business) when I had a day off from school, and I would help out in the warehouse. One worker I would frequently assist would sometimes take me into a corner, pull out his penis, and masturbate by pushing it into my underpants. I was too young (probably 10-11) to understand what he was doing -- only decades later did I recall it and realize that I'd been the victom of child molestation.

I can't remember if my sister (a year younger than me) also helped like this. If she did, I hesitate to think what might have happened to her.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-17, 07:44, said:

It sounds to me as if you did not spend much if any time around a bunch of drunken fraternity brothers. And that the woman who was the supposed target can't remember sounds to me like she was just as drunk.

When I was as senior in high school, I was courted by a number of the fraternities at the University of Oklahoma. One night I dropped in with a date on a frat party during "rush week" and from that brief experience developed the idea that the movie Animal House was only a slight exaggeration.

I was in a fraternity for a wile.I joined for what I thought were practical reasons, to some extent it worked. In me senior year in high school my parents told me that if I wanted to go to college ( the U of M is in Mpls) I could continue living at home (in St. Paul) without contributing to family finances. I really hated living at home, I really wanted to go to college, so I continued to live at home, meaning I slept there and had breakfast there, lunch and dinner I ate on campus. Joining a frat I could eat there. I still slept at home. Eventually I quit the frat, moved out of my house, figured I can either make it or I can't but I am outta here, both home and the frat.

One frat experience: We were to select a queen and there was much discussion about physical features of women. I was assigned to pick up a candidate at her home and while driving her to the frat we had a discussion. She had decided that this would be her last pitch for becoming queen of anything. She thought it was not good for her to put herself up for this sort of judgment, and she was done with it. This matched well with thoughts that I had been having about the whole thing.. I was seeing someone else at the time or I am pretty sure I would have asked her out, probably but maybe not having enough sense to wait until the judging had been done. Neither she nor I gave much of a damn as to whether she won, I think she didn't.

Yes, I got drunk for the first time at the frat, I had had a personal crisis and when it passed I drank a serious amount of scotch. And there were various frat like things that I thought were nuts but most were not awful. But I got out, it wasn't for me.

So my experience with all of this is not zip, but I agree it is not extensive.

I accept that drunken parties lead to strange things. But the story still sounds strange. Guys, drunk or not, do not usually want to push another guy's penis. As to the woman forgetting, I can imagine that if she was asked "Do you recall a bunch of guys pushing another guy's penis into your hand?" she might well say no. If the incident were described in a more realistic manner, perhaps she might think back and say "Oh yes, I do recall".

A victim should be given a great deal of credence and should be treated gently when she has a little trouble saying things right. This situation is different. We have a newspaper columnist for the NYT and a guy writing a book. The subject could lead to impeachment so it is of great importance. Neither the columnist nor the book writer were traumatized victims, not in this event anyway. It is very reasonable to expect them to present the story in a way that makes sense. They could ask the witness "The guy's friends pushed his penis into her hand? Please give a little more detail as to exactly how this was done. Please explain whether BK cooperated with this, please explain whether it was BK or his friends that pulled his pants down". In short, have the witness give enough detail so that the story holds together.

[cherdano]

I admit "kenberg would like more detail explaining how some pushed someone's penis into someone's hand" was not among the things I would have predicted to read in the Water Cooler. Strange times we live in.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-17, 09:53, said:

I was in a fraternity for a wile.I joined for what I thought were practical reasons, to some extent it worked. In me senior year in high school my parents told me that if I wanted to go to college ( the U of M is in Mpls) I could continue living at home (in St. Paul) without contributing to family finances. I really hated living at home, I really wanted to go to college, so I continued to live at home, meaning I slept there and had breakfast there, lunch and dinner I ate on campus. Joining a frat I could eat there. I still slept at home. Eventually I quit the frat, moved out of my house, figured I can either make it or I can't but I am outta here, both home and the frat.

One frat experience: We were to select a queen and there was much discussion about physical features of women. I was assigned to pick up a candidate at her home and while driving her to the frat we had a discussion. She had decided that this would be her last pitch for becoming queen of anything. She thought it was not good for her to put herself up for this sort of judgment, and she was done with it. This matched well with thoughts that I had been having about the whole thing.. I was seeing someone else at the time or I am pretty sure I would have asked her out, probably but maybe not having enough sense to wait until the judging had been done. Neither she nor I gave much of a damn as to whether she won, I think she didn't.

Yes, I got drunk for the first time at the frat, I had had a personal crisis and when it passed I drank a serious amount of scotch. And there were various frat like things that I thought were nuts but most were not awful. But I got out, it wasn't for me.

So my experience with all of this is not zip, but I agree it is not extensive.

I accept that drunken parties lead to strange things. But the story still sounds strange. Guys, drunk or not, do not usually want to push another guy's penis. As to the woman forgetting, I can imagine that if she was asked "Do you recall a bunch of guys pushing another guy's penis into your hand?" she might well say no. If the incident were described in a more realistic manner, perhaps she might think back and say "Oh yes, I do recall".

A victim should be given a great deal of credence and should be treated gently when she has a little trouble saying things right. This situation is different. We have a newspaper columnist for the NYT and a guy writing a book. The subject could lead to impeachment so it is of great importance. Neither the columnist nor the book writer were traumatized victims, not in this event anyway. It is very reasonable to expect them to present the story in a way that makes sense. They could ask the witness "The guy's friends pushed his penis into her hand? Please give a little more detail as to exactly how this was done. Please explain whether BK cooperated with this, please explain whether it was BK or his friends that pulled his pants down". In short, have the witness give enough detail so that the story holds together.

Ken, I agree that serious consequences require serious investigation, which once again condemns the derelict investigation done by the FBI, reigned in by the Republican-controlled senate, into the claims surrounding Kavanaugh's actions. Which leads me into this, a quote I borrowed from a poster known as Earlofhuntingdon at Emptywheel.net.

Quote

From Andrew Reynolds, political scientist at UNC (emphasis added):

“When it comes to the integrity of the voting district boundaries no country has ever received as low a score as the 7/100 North Carolina received. North Carolina is not only the worst state in the USA for unfair districting but the worst entity in the world ever analyzed by the Electoral Integrity Project.”

They can’t win unless they cheat. No safe pair of hands longing for a return to a time of mint juleps on the veranda will fix that. It will take a generation of hardworking, hard networking women and men, who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty and their hair mussed. I pinky swear.

The GOP in its present iteration actively works to suppress democracy. That is really the issue - about Kavanaugh and about everything else in the political arena. Who truly are the enemies of this nation?

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-16, 18:07, said:

You can be impeached for lying during your confirmation hearings.

So did anyone ask Judge Kavanaugh about this alleged incident during his confirmation hearing? If not, it's pretty hard to say he lied about it. So, no impeachment. Even more important, you have to have some proof that the allegations are true. People can make lots of claims but that doesn't make them true.

Quote

FWIW: The NYT did not retract but offered a correction to their story. The Hill describes it like this:

You know, if you tried to find out the accurate information for yourself instead of relying on Fox and Friends to tell you what is happening you wouldn't so often look like a twit.

Let's recap with reality compared to what you claimed: 1) The NYT issued a correction, not a retraction. The basic story is unchanged. 2) Kavanaugh was never going to be impeached for what happened 30 years ago but for lying under oath during his confirmation hearing.

The correction completely undercuts the allegations. The "victim" apparently doesn't remember the incident and wasn't contacted about it. It's just more wild claims by individuals bent on character assassination. But, hey, in the progressive biosphere, any allegation that might get you a political end is OK, right? It's easy to see how corrupt the moral indignation of progressives is. First class slime balls.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2019-September-17, 10:16, said:

So did anyone ask Judge Kavanaugh about this alleged incident during his confirmation hearing? If not, it's pretty hard to say he lied about it. So, no impeachment. Even more important, you have to have some proof that the allegations are true. People can make lots of claims but that doesn't make them true.




The correction completely undercuts the allegations. The "victim" apparently doesn't remember the incident and wasn't contacted about it. It's just more wild claims by individuals bent on character assassination. But, hey, in the progressive biosphere, any allegation that might get you a political end is OK, right? It's easy to see how corrupt the moral indignation of progressives is. First class slime balls.

Your ignorance, biases, and lack of critical thinking skills I find too trying with which to bother. I will help you overcome your ignorance this one last time.

First, Kavanaugh under oath at his confirmation hearing categorically denied engaging in any sexually inappropriate behavior. He also denied that he drank excessively. Either of these would be enough to impeach if shown he knowingly lied about any sexually inappropriate behavior or any excessive drinking, including the new claim by the witness, Max Stier.

Second, the issue from the NYT is not the girl but that a reliable witness, Max Stier, claimed he witnessed Kavanaugh engaged in lewd behavior. That the girl says she doesn't remember has no bearing whatsoever on what Max Stier says he witnessed.

Again, no one knows for sure what happened. The FBI were not allowed to investigate thoroughly. That you exonerate Kavanaugh without question says way more about you than it does about the NYT, the girl in question, or Max Stier.

At the least, a critical thinker should be curious as to what the reality is about Kavanaugh.

Best of luck with your cancer - from a retired hospice nurse. Now back to your regularly scheduled brainwashing programming.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2019-September-17, 10:10, said:

I admit "kenberg would like more detail explaining how some pushed someone's penis into someone's hand" was not among the things I would have predicted to read in the Water Cooler. Strange times we live in.

Agreed! I was a bit hesitant about getting into this discussion at all. I decided to do so, partly because I thought that the weirdness of it was part of the problem. The NYT publishes a story and, while the story as told sounds ridiculous, people don't want to get into a long discussion as to whether it is or is not reasonable to think a bunch of guys pushed some other guy's penis somewhere. So the story just lies there unchallenged. And yes, I will now probably drop out of this particular discussion.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-September-17, 11:12, said:

Agreed! I was a bit hesitant about getting into this discussion at all. I decided to do so, partly because I thought that the weirdness of it was part of the problem. The NYT publishes a story and, while the story as told sounds ridiculous, people don't want to get into a long discussion as to whether it is or is not reasonable to think a bunch of guys pushed some other guy's penis somewhere. So the story just lies there unchallenged. And yes, I will now probably drop out of this particular discussion.

Again, I don't think you two guys have ever been drunk enough - Okie drunk - at least not many times and with a bunch of immature, horny 19-20 year olds. That someone like an extremely drunk Bret Kavanaugh could be coerced by his drunken buddies to pull his penis from his pants (as a drunken joke) while standing behind a girl, who had her back to him, and then had those same drunken buddies shove him from behind so that his penis hit her hand is not, to me, at all far-fetched. Having been around a lot of drunk horny guys in my youth, there isn't much that isn't possible to have occurred. The only oddity to me is that there was someone around sober enough to notice it and remember the incident.

But none of this is really the issue. The issue is the lack of investigation that the FBI was allowed to do prior to Kavanaugh's confirmation, and who set the parameters of that investigation. Kamela Harris asked this very question to Christopher Wray. His answer? The White House.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2019-September-17, 10:16, said:

So did anyone ask Judge Kavanaugh about this alleged incident during his confirmation hearing? If not, it's pretty hard to say he lied about it.

Kavanugh: "I'm here today to tell the I've never sexually assaulted anyone. Not in high school, not in college, not ever. sexual assault is horrific."

Please note: Indecent exposure rises to the level of sexual assault if there is any kind of physical contact.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-17, 11:10, said:

Your ignorance, biases, and lack of critical thinking skills I find too trying with which to bother. I will help you overcome your ignorance this one last time.

Anybody making book on this (the last time part)?

[y66]

From New Jersey Opens a New Path to Gun Safety by the Editorial Board at Bloomberg:

Quote

This is a time of real progress on gun safety — no thanks to Washington. President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell continue to block vital and popular gun-safety legislation. The U.S. House of Representatives this year passed a bill extending background checks to virtually all gun purchases, and it appears poised to pass legislation to allow courts to temporarily take guns from people who are a danger to themselves or others. But gun-safety legislation continues to languish in the Senate. In the states, fortunately, it’s a very different story.

Legislatures across the country have recently passed laws — banning semi-automatic “assault” rifles in Connecticut, for example, and requiring background checks on ammunition sales in California. Yet the problem with these initiatives is obvious: Guns can be moved across state lines. Shooters in Chicago, for instance, might use guns sourced in Indiana or Mississippi, where traffickers can continue to exploit weak laws, regardless of what Illinois might do.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy just took what might be a big step toward addressing this. He signed an executive order that seeks to use his state’s purchasing power to raise safety standards not just in New Jersey, but in other states too. New Jersey spends millions to arm its state police and other law-enforcement authorities. The executive order will require firearm manufacturers and retailers who do business with the state, wherever they’re located, to disclose whether they adhere to New Jersey’s safety standards. The order also empowers state agencies to make adherence to those standards a requirement for companies seeking to sell firearms to New Jersey.

The order is aimed especially at the “bad apple” gun dealers that are responsible for a disproportionate number of guns used in crimes. According to an analysis by the Brady campaign against gun violence, roughly 5% of gun dealers are responsible for about 90% of the guns recovered from crime investigations. Dealers and manufacturers doing business with the state will have to disclose whether they have adopted policies to ensure public safety, including preventing so-called straw purchases (where the real buyer is hidden) and thefts of firearms and ammunition, and to aid law enforcement in denying criminals access to guns. The state will also require that financial institutions doing business with the state disclose what policies they have in place to ensure that their gun-industry clients don’t facilitate reckless commerce in firearms.

There’s a simpler way to curb gun violence, of course. Congress could enact, and the president could sign, sensible new national laws, and fund research on gun violence to inform future policy. And the president could direct the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to crack down on rogue gun dealers. Until the Senate and White House are freed from the grip of the gun industry, however, state leaders will have to make progress where they can.

Governor Murphy has opened a promising new path to saving lives.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-September-17, 14:59, said:

Anybody making book on this (the last time part)?

I'll take that bet.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-16, 15:26, said:

Seems there is more impeachment talk in the air:

Any actual impeachment should wait until after a Democrat is elected President. Frat boy Kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme, but an even worse candidate is sure to be appointed by the Criminal in Chief and confirmed by the Moscow Mitch Senate. Sure, use it as a 2020 campaign issue but there is no equity in removing Kavanaugh before a suitable replacement can be appointed.

There is also criminal liability for lying to Congress which will never see the light of day until there is a Democratic President.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2019-September-17, 17:32, said:

Any actual impeachment should wait until after a Democrat is elected President. Frat boy Kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme, but an even worse candidate is sure to be appointed by the Criminal in Chief and confirmed by the Moscow Mitch Senate. Sure, use it as a 2020 campaign issue but there is no equity in removing Kavanaugh before a suitable replacement can be appointed.

I agree except what is really needed is a Democratic senate - a more difficult assignmnet.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2019-September-17, 16:59, said:

I'll take that bet.

$10 says you can't resist replying to the troll in question for 30 days.

[y66]

From Krugman:

Quote

Weird stuff going on in the repo market. Supposedly just technical, but worth remembering that a "run on repo" was at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis.

Story here by Liz McCormick and Alex Harris at Bloomberg.

Quote

The Federal Reserve took action to calm money markets, injecting billions in cash to quell a surge in short-term rates that was pushing up its policy benchmark rate and threatening to drive up borrowing costs for companies and consumers. The central bank also said it’s willing to spend another $75 billion Wednesday.

While the spike wasn’t evidence of any sort of imminent financial crisis, it highlighted how the Fed was losing control over short-term lending, one of its key tools for implementing monetary policy. It also indicated Wall Street is struggling to absorb record sales of Treasury debt to fund a swelling U.S. budget deficit. What’s more, many dealers have curtailed trading because of safeguards implemented after the 2008 crisis, making these markets more prone to volatility.

Money markets saw funding shortages Monday and Tuesday, driving the rate on one-day loans backed by Treasury bonds -- known as repurchase agreements, or repos -- as high as 10%, about four times greater than last week’s levels, according to ICAP data.

More importantly, the turmoil in the repo market caused a key benchmark for policy makers -- known as the effective fed funds rate -- to jump to 2.25%, an increase that, if left unchecked, could have started impacting broader borrowing costs in the economy. Because that’s at the top of the range where Fed officials want the rate to be, they are likely to make yet another tweak to a key part of their policy tool set -- something called the interest on excess reserves rate -- to try to get things back on track when they meet Wednesday to set their benchmarks.

But the central bank didn’t wait until then to do something, resorting to a money-market operation it hasn’t deployed in a decade. The New York Fed bought $53.2 billion of securities on Tuesday, hoping to quell the liquidity squeeze. It appeared to help. For instance, the cost to borrow dollars for one week while lending euros retreated after almost doubling Monday.

Late Tuesday, the New York Fed said it would conduct another overnight repo operation of up to $75 billion Wednesday morning.

For repo traders, hedge funds and others that rely on that market for financing, the intervention came none too soon.

“There’s been a sea change in markets, and it’s one the Fed needed to respond to,” said Lou Crandall of Wrightson ICAP. “In the current market environment, there is just not enough elasticity in the repo market to handle the big seasonal swings of the banking system. The Fed needed to come in now and alleviate the immediate problem, while it is also working on long-term solutions.”

The central bank has considered introducing a new tool, an overnight repo facility, that could be used to reduce pressure in money markets. No decision has been announced. Another long-term remedy would be growing the Fed’s balance sheet again to permanently increase reserves in the banking system. But for now, if the rate remains elevated, expect more temporary liquidity injections, Crandall said.

The New York Fed declined to comment on the events of this week.

Actions like the Fed took Tuesday were once commonplace, but stopped being so when the central bank expanded its balance sheet and started using a range of rates to implement its policy in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers’ 2008 collapse.

Securities eligible for collateral in the Fed operation include Treasuries, agency debt and mortgage-backed securities. In an overnight system repo, the Fed lends cash to primary dealers against Treasury securities or other collateral.

Surges in the repo rate normally occur only at quarter-end and sometimes month-end. This mid-month surge was attributed to a confluence of events that knocked cash reserves in the banking system out of balance with the volume of securities on dealer balance sheets: a corporate tax payment date, settlement of last week’s Treasury auctions, and last week’s bond-market sell-off, in which investors sold securities back to dealers.

This is certainly painful for firms that have to fund positions,” said Thomas Simons, an economist at Jefferies LLC. “So it’s difficult for the dealer community. But it’s not systemically threatening.”

Beyond the technical forces driving the spike in repo rates, the move is also a sign that excess reserves in the banking system are dwindling, according to Tom di Galoma, managing director of government trading and strategy at Seaport Global Holdings LLC.

“This made the repo market ripe for dislocation,” he said.