It’s time for another Who Won the Week prompt. The idea behind Who Won the Week is for you to select who (or what) you think “won” this past week. Your selection can be anyone or anything — politicians, celebrities, athletes, authors, bloggers, your friends or family members, books, movies, TV shows, businesses, organizations, whatever.
I will be posting this prompt on Sunday mornings (my time). If you want to participate, write your own post designating who you think won the week and why you think they deserve your nod. Then link back to this post and tag you post with FWWTW.
This week I am choosing a word: hoax.
What is a hoax? It’s a deception, a lie, or a trick that is designed to appear true and fool others into believing in its truth.
So why am I choosing “hoax”? Well, that seems to be one of Donald Trump’s favorite words. Especially when it comes to anything he doesn’t like or that casts him in a negative light. And, sadly, his supporters tend to be buying into it.
Rejecting the findings of nearly all scientists, Trump has referred to climate change a hoax. He claimed that Russian interference with the 2016 elections was a hoax. He called the Mueller investigation into his potential collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice a hoax.
He called the charges against his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, as well as contentious hearings on his appointment to the High Court, hoaxes.
The impeachment hearings by the House of Representatives was a hoax. The impeachment trial in the Senate was a hoax. And his latest hoax claim is that Democratic complaints about his handling of the coronavirus threat is “their new hoax.”
It seems “hoax” has replaced “fake news” and “witch hunt” as Donald’s favorite words. So that is why I chose “hoax” as the word that won the week this week.
And now it’s your turn, folks. Who (or what) do you think won the week?
This, That, and the Other 
Actually I lost track of Kavanagh. I remember seeing the testimony, and thought there might be an arrest and maybee even a court case after that, but I never heard a thing. Did anything ever happen?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed and sits on the highest court, along with Clarence Thomas, whose wife has an enemies list against people who don’t like Donald Trump.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But what happened about the allegations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nothing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, right. That would explain why I never heard anything!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The best we can do is make jokes about liking beer: “I like beer. I still like beer. Girls like beer too.” It’s a sort of gallows humor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, the Republicans in the Senate confirmed his nomination and he’s now one of the nine Supreme Court justices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just as an academic question, somebody on the Supreme Court does not become exempt from lawsuits, do they? Did some kind of statute of limitations kick in? The part I am struggling with is *why* the story just ended there. She semed a perfectly credible witnss, what I saw.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it’s painful for us to think about the details of what happened and why in enough detail to convey it. Additionally, there is no reasonable explanation. For one thing, our government (under Trump and those who find Trump to be a good excuse to behave in the absurd) is doing a lot of things that “don’t add up” — and this is disturbing on its own due to our esteem for our form of government and the feeling (after observing facts) it’s being trampled.
Secondly, I agree with you that the lady who testified against him was credible — so she should have been taken seriously. There was a sham of a quick investigation (provably a sham). Meanwhile, political followers imagined she was a liar (partly based on the assertion they know she’s not uncomfortable to fearful in close spaces, as she said, and partly just, you know, because). On top of that, I do think the statute of limitations was up. Besides… what she had wanted was simply to give the people considering names for the job the benefit of her knowledge as to what kind of person he was — so that he would no longer be on the short list to become so deeply meaningful for everyone in the country.
Now, even though the statute of limitations was up, criminally speaking, and even though he got beyond the short list to become the actual nominee, a thorough investigation of everything about him was in order before confirmation. But it seems the senators were going by the old thinking that we wouldn’t want to “ruin” a man’s life for what he did to a woman… and they don’t even want to know. Few people seemed to be able to consider that not getting a promotion isn’t the same thing as or as bad as going to prison. No one is entitled to move up in the hierarchy of the court system. However, had there been a real investigation, it could have been appropriate to remove him from any position as any judge. Yet, given all the unqualified judges that have been nominated and confirmed under Trump (while affirmations under Obama were stymied), the senators just don’t seem to care about qualification (other than to be a partisan). [There has been some talk of impeaching him, mostly before Barr became the Attorney General.]
There are other ways, having nothing to do with Christine Blasey Ford, in which Kavanaugh wasn’t properly vetted. I don’t know why there was no conscientious effort to do the job of the Senate and think through who this person was and is and what he’s been up to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, okay, so there *was* a statute of limitations? That then, in my eyes, makes all the difference. It harms this woman’s credibility enormously, to the point where she is no longer credible.
If it was not acted upon *within* the statute of limitations, why not? It must have meant that either she felt that the evidence was not strong enough to secure a conviction.
To specifically bring it up for the first time *now*, then, was purely malicious.
If that is the case, I can see why she was finished before she even started.
LikeLike
In the U.S., statute of limitations laws for sexual assault and rape cases vary by state. Thirty-four states impose limits on when a rape case can be brought forward, ranging from 3 to 30 years after the assault. So it depends upon in which state the crime occurred. In the Kavanaugh case, it was in Maryland.
Based upon Ford’s description of the event, Kavanaugh’s alleged actions could be considered second-degree assault or a fourth-degree sexual offense, according to legal experts. Believe it or not, those are misdemeanors under Maryland law, and the statute of limitations prohibits charges after one year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You surprise me, I would have thought that Maryland would have been one of the most liberal states.
I could maybe go along with a statute of limitations for some things, but I’d certainly err on the side of 30 years rather than 3, certainly not 1. I’m not sure I’d be happy with any kind of sol for big things like rape or murder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. SOLs shouldn’t be permitted for major crimes, but “states’ rights” in America is a real thing. The claim is that if the right isn’t specifically granted to the federal government, it belongs to a state, and given that the U.S. is comprised of 50 states, our laws are often a patchwork of laws.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose we have it too, to a lesser extent here too. abortion, I think. Northern Ireland is generally more conservative than the rest of us, so it wasn’t allowed there, despite being allowed in both the rest of the UK and in Ireland. Because NI is devolved, it controls its own health policy, so nothing could be done. But there was pressure to class it as a Human Rights issue instead, which would come under the jurisdiction of the UK. I’m not sure wheree we are with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yours is a good question. One source I read said, “While Supreme Court justices are granted ‘judicial immunity’ for lawsuits related to cases or trials they oversee, for crimes or actions committed outside their role, they face the same punishments and judicial actions as any other US citizen. The only difference is that a justice on the Supreme Court won’t lose their seat if they’re found guilty. The only way a justice can be removed from their position is by an act of Congress.”
The woman at the center of this controversy, Christine Blasey Ford, decided not to pursue criminal charges after what she went through during the Senate confirmation hearings, so the matter is probably settled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The trouble is that by not taking it further legally, when she gets up in front of the seenate and says bad things, it sounds likee sour grapes, rather than objective testimony.
I think what she said was quite convincing, but until you can cross-examine, as you might do in a court, you nver know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if you observed after her testimony. The senators (dominated by the Republicans) made the whole thing into a sick joke. They changed the rules midstream and didn’t follow through during the completion of his confirmation, including when they questioned him. Then, like I said, they gave a wink and had a sham investigation for a few days. There are things that could have been done. They didn’t want to do them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I saw the testimony, but not the aftermath. She was very compelling, which is why I thought the allegations would have been better presented in a courtroom, where she could have been properly cross-examined. We (society) can’t decide whether guilty or innocent when we only hear one side of the story, no matter how compelling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We (society) can’t decide whether guilty or innocent when we only hear one side of the story, no matter how compelling.
True… as far as it goes.
That also goes for calling her a liar without hearing matters out.
As it turns out, the FBI isn’t experienced in looking into this kind of topic. They are tasked with background checks, but our culture has been very unconcerned about these offenses until recently. This is a sort of reform we need to address. But we likely won’t.
Bottom line, deciding on job promotion is not a decision as to criminal guilt. In the United States, we even have a separate system for civil cases — where the same topic can be addressed with a lower threshold of evidence or proof… for instance O.J. wasn’t found guilty of murder but was held responsible to be punished (for murder) in having to pay money (to family members as far as I know). When there is going to be no punishment of criminal conviction, nor of monetary penalty, the burden of proof is even less exacting. You don’t really have to prove anything about someone to not promote them within the government or a company and choose someone else instead. Of course, Donald Trump would be the last person to reconsider a nomination based on vulgarity. He would rather enjoy the offensiveness. Grab’m wherever you want.
Kavanaugh wouldn’t need to be proven to have done the specific things Christine conveyed. Enough came out about him in the process that we ought to desire to discourage in our sons. But maybe most ivy leaguers don’t want to discourage such things in their sons. Too bad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It comes down to whether you have a presumption of innocence or not. If Christine Blasey was not prepared to take her allegations to the police and to build a case against Kavanagh, then that says something.
it is not so unreasonable therefore for a senator to dismiss her testimony completely (i.e. every word of it). Because when somebody stands up and makes allegations against somebody, then the first thing they need to do is to establish their credibility. There’s the link between a senate hearing and a court – a court victory would have made her credible. It seems absolutely reasonable for a senator to say “if there was anything to Blasey’s allegations, she would have mad a complaint already”. So, Kavanagh is innocent, as things stand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She made known what happened to her at the hands of Kavanaugh because he was being considered for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and she wanted to make the country and the senators aware of his character, not because she wanted to litigate a 36 year-old sexual assault. Just because a bunch of highly partisan senators decided to overlook his actions and confirm his nomination does not make him innocent.
These same senators acquitted Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress at Trump’s impeachment trial even though he was clearly guilty on both counts. Would you say that Trump is innocent of all alleged charges just because the Republican sycophants is the Senate acquitted him? Both the Kavanaugh nomination hearings and the Trump impeachment trial in the Senate were highly partisan political shams, not statements of guilt or innocence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought we established that he was already “innocent” — not technically innocent so much as “not” declared “guilty” — only in a legal sense (if not in fact); this being due to the one-year limitation on anyone giving a shit. So, I should be on the Supreme Court because I myself am also not guilty of assaulting Christine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many people have been withdrawn (by the nominator such as a president) or have stepped away from nominations — for the Supreme Court, for the presidential cabinet, for other positions — due to unseemly factors coming to light… regardless of there not having been any adjudication in court.
Others have simply decided they didn’t want the job (or wanted “to spend more time with the family” as they say) after having accepted the nomination. People said a variety of things about one of George W. Bush’s picks. For example: Lott said…
“I just was concerned that she was not strong enough, dynamic enough and had enough experience in the constitutional area to be on the Supreme Court. It was not a philosophical, regional, religious thing with me.” (Read more reactions to Miers’ decision)
Miers’ withdrawal also was applauded by conservative activists, many of whom opposed the nomination from the beginning.
“The president did the right thing in withdrawing her and saving her from further embarrassment,” the Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly said. “I now hope he’ll deliver on his campaign commitment to pick a judge in the mold of [Clarence] Thomas and [Antonin] Scalia.”
https://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/27/miers.nominations/index.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
One will be able (upon reading more of the CNN article looking back at Miers) to see a parallel between the Miers and the Kavanaugh affairs, not that there was anything seedy about Miers like there is about Kavanaugh (patterns of behavior that were shown and not dependent on Christine Blasey Ford). And then there are other grave aspects with regard to Kavanaugh. This article (below) addresses one or more, but not all, of them.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-bush-torture-20180718-story.html
Kavanaugh was involved in at least one contentious meeting at the White House Counsel’s Office in 2002, and two former White House officials detailed his role in interviews this week with The Washington Post.
Bush was then developing his policy on detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, and Kavanaugh was asked to interpret an important question about how the detainee policy was likely to be viewed in a Supreme Court challenge, specifically by Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had served as a clerk.
…
Kavanaugh had already been confirmed for the circuit court when the White House meeting became public in a Post report. Democrats including Durbin have sought ever since to question Kavanaugh about whether he misled the Senate Judiciary Committee.
…
….
….
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed Durbin’s concern, saying in a statement to The Post that Kavanaugh “held high-level positions within the White House, and he reportedly weighed in on how his former boss, Justice Kennedy, would rule on detainee treatment issues. Yet he claimed he had no knowledge of the torture policies of the Bush Administration during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee. This is precisely why this document production is so crucial in this confirmation process.”
…
….
…
….
The question was deemed likely to go to the Supreme Court, leading to discussion within the counsel’s office about how the case would fare – and Kennedy’s likely role as a swing vote.
Kavanaugh and another member of the legal team, Brad Berenson, had been Kennedy clerks. Berenson argued at the meeting that Kennedy would not accept the concept of denying detainees the right to be heard and have legal representation, and the case would be lost, according to a meeting participant. Berenson declined to comment.
[There is a lot of article remaining after these parts I have quoted.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obvious to me, Mike Pence. Finally he will prove what a do nothing, asked to nothing person he is; will probably rely on prayer to destroy the coronavirus threat. Of course only asking for a cure for wasps.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pence…a good choice for all the reasons you noted.
LikeLike
“Hoax” also has a tinge of a mystic or spiritual connotation or meaning to it. It’s similar to “witch hunt” in that way. With witch hunt, though, there can be (and, because of Salem, usually is) a sense of fakery… that there is no such thing as a witch and nothing to find [whereas there was plenty dark to be found with Trump and his cronies or boss(es)]. With hoax, the casting of blame for making something up is again aimed on those evaluating the situation, but engaging in witchy or spiritually bad behavior is an accusation toward them as well. On various levels, mostly subconscious, that is manipulative and powerful 💭 thought for enthralling his followers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
His son is a FOX guest and refers to his dad as Donald Trump? That in and of itself is strange. And the egregious suggestion he makes? WTF?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Junior is a chip off the old block…or blockhead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s what won the week for me:
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-bids-ben-carson-farewell-until-next-black-history-month
LikeLiked by 2 people
👍😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had to send that on to my sisters 😆
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL. Andy Borowitz is hilarious! His Borowitz Report always makes me laugh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for putting it on, now I’ll add him to people to read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good choice for the winner this week… he does seem to like that word. 😡
LikeLiked by 1 person
I havent participated in a while, time I did now again!
LikeLike