The Ornery American Forums
General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 11:55:32 AM
-
I'm not getting to watch any of the day's proceedings, but I was struck by this article. Corey Booker has apparently decided to deliberately violate the rules of the Senate (which means he could be subject to expulsion - though I presume, he already knows that it would take a majority that can't be reached). He's doing it to release Kavanaugh emails on racial profiling. Here's the Fox article http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/06/kavanaugh-questioning-enters-final-stretch-as-dems-seem-to-lay-traps.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/06/kavanaugh-questioning-enters-final-stretch-as-dems-seem-to-lay-traps.html)
Now what struck me, is he claims he can't see any national security reason for these to have been excluded.
Booker on Thursday drew attention to one 2002 email in particular from Kavanaugh that had the subject line “racial profiling.”
In the email, Kavanaugh, who was working as a lawyer in the Bush White House, said he “generally” favored race-neutral security measures, but said they need to “grapple” with the “interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.”
Kavanaugh wrote that the “interim question” is of “critical importance to the security of the airlines and American people in the next 6 months or so, especially given Al Qaeda’s track record of timing between terrorist incidents.”
This was a discussion in the six months after September 11th about how to maintain plane security until a race neutral system could be implemented. How exactly does a US Senator not see a national security basis for exclusion?
If anything that email makes Kavanaugh look better. And while I've always had a soft spot for Corey, this makes him look like a crazy person.
-
How exactly does a US Senator not see a national security basis for exclusion?
The timing is important. What was obviously a legitimate national security issue then, may obviously NOT be legitimate any longer.
-
Executive thought on protecting the country from an emergency threat by a racial group is still a national security matter. That's not going to change.
Do you believe that your government should engage in racial profiling if it has actionable intel of such a threat attributable to a specific minority group?
-
Nope
-
Considering an email released by an anonymous source where Kavanaugh claimed Roe V Wade was not settled law calls into question what has been deemed as classified.
-
Do you believe that your government should engage in racial profiling if it has actionable intel of such a threat attributable to a specific minority group?
If you have actionable intel, you should have more information than the race of the dude you think is about to do something.
"A muslim wants to hijack a plane" is NOT actionable intel.
-
Actually, we knew quite a bit more about Al Queda, even at the time, than a "a muslim wants to hijack a plane." That's not actionable intel, which makes it a strawman response.
-
Here's a pretty good opinion piece from the WSJ on why Congress is at fault for the SC becoming so politicized. https://www.wsj.com/articles/blame-congress-for-politicizing-the-court-1536189015 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/blame-congress-for-politicizing-the-court-1536189015)
The real key is not so much the moralizing, as just the acknowledgement that dumping so much authority into administrative agencies is behind much of what is wrong with our system.
-
Racial profiling isn't pulling aside people suspected of being Al Queda operatives, it's pulling aside random people belonging to that race for screening. It is a burden on those people, and a distraction from more effective law enforcement. Pulling aside people travelling from certain countries is not racial profiling, or any other actionable intel.
In the emails, they describe an "interim response" that is not race neutral, but it never gets into much detail about how race would be "a factor" without it being the only factor.
-
So, if we were able to identify a specific terrorist threat coming from a racial group of 4 million people, of which less than 500 travel into the US annually, you would not support targeted searches of people in that group? If 100 people from the group more than is typical purchased tickets in the window of the known threat, it would be perfectly okay with you to ignore that statistical blip?
There was no question that post 9/11 airline screening had to improve. There is no question that - at that time - we did not have in place systems or capacity to go from zero to complete race neutral screening. Kavanaugh literally said we need to get to a race neutral system (by the way, it wasn't - and isn't clear - that consideration of race was not legal, which means he was advocating for the right answer where its arguable it was legal to argue for the "wrong" answer), and that while we go from zero to race neutral we need to consider if we should have a targeted system given the conflict between the need for security and the limited resources we had available.
Whether you agree or disagree with any final position, it's hard to see how that isn't a reasonable position to take.
-
Now who's got a straw man? What racial group has 2 people per day in it travelling to a country the size of the united states? And could thousands of airport screeners correctly identify members of that group, or would it just generically be anybody vaguely arab looking?
Anyway, nothing Kavanaugh said was particularly bothersome to me, he clearly describes wrestling with the moral implications.
-
Now who's got a straw man? What racial group has 2 people per day in it travelling to a country the size of the united states?
Plenty. Do you have any idea how many identifiable ethnic groups there are? How many with less than 5 million people in them.
I agree intelligence about a threat from someone of Han background is worthless. But that wouldn't be actionable for that exact reason.
And could thousands of airport screeners correctly identify members of that group, or would it just generically be anybody vaguely arab looking?
How many thousands of University administrators correctly apply such labels? Airport screeners have the advantage of advance information on most passengers, as well as, lots of experience.
It could be that it would be poorly applied.
So, just to confirm, you would rather ignore the known threat than apply additional screening to those 100 passengers.
What if it was a non-racial metric? Say the proverbial one-armed man? Or how about someone from a specific region of the world? What about in the event of an infectious disease?
Anyway, nothing Kavanaugh said was particularly bothersome to me, he clearly describes wrestling with the moral implications.
Yes, which makes Booker's questions on the first day little more than blatant fear mongering and an attempt at a smear.
-
So, just to confirm, you would rather ignore the known threat than apply additional screening to those 100 passengers.
What if it was a non-racial metric? Say the proverbial one-armed man? Or how about someone from a specific region of the world? What about in the event of an infectious disease?
"We're looking for a Sikh with a Sri-Lankan passport who is travelling to Los Angeles." Okay, yeah, now maybe some extra screening makes sense, even if you don't know much more than that. But that's no longer racial or religious profiling.
"Let's screen more arab looking people than european looking people" - that's profiling, and I am fully against it. To use such a metric, you have to be clueless about any details concerning the "known threat", don't you?
-
TheDrake, my specific hypo was for "actionable intel" yet your responses are completely related to generic racial metrics. That's why I'm saying you're talking strawman. Nothing you put forward would be actionable. Not anymore than a report that a group of men were going to be the terrorists. Does that mean that considering gender is off the table?
What about FBI profiling? If virtually all terrorists are men between the ages of 14 and 34 (made up), is that something that has to be excluded from the screening list just because the vast majority of people in that group are not terrorists?
Here's a list from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups). Not that I think this is necessarily correct. You may note "Arab" represents 450 million people. That's not going to be useful to identify a particular person. There are other groups that are so small that you probably could identify the specific person by including that as a factor.
You seem to be advocating that we have to ignore known facts, rather than include them as part of the puzzle. I think you're conflating the concept with the idea that it would be the ONLY fact we use.
-
I agree. In your cases, racial profiling is not in play. Just because a description of a man you're looking for includes race, you still have a race-neutral system as described in the emails.
I can't cut and paste, but Helgard Walkers mail on 1/17/2002 describes a view that a race-neutral system is preferable, and uses criteria like passport, travel, criminal history, etc.
To kick the whole discussion off, Kavanaugh writes:
"The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in reality is a naked racial set-aside."
He is not discussing actionable intelligence. He is describing a system that, all other factors being equal, what they really want to do is just screen a bunch of random Muslims. Am I missing something? It was talked about a lot at the time, that broadly speaking we should be screening more Muslims because they are the bad guys.
We generally don't treat age discrimination the same way, but I'll note that much snickering has been done over a grandma that gets pulled out for random extra screening - but that's what an age-neutral system looks like. It says, if we're going to hassle people, then everybody has to feel the pain equally. And we're going to spend some resources in order to maintain that equality.
-
It has been reported on FNC that Corey Booker was informed over five hours before he made his comments in the senate hearing that the documents he requested have been released for his and public viewing. So his "Spartacus" claims about nobly defying senate rules was just grandstanding. He did not, in fact, violate any senate rules, and was therefore in no danger of being expelled from the senate. And he knew it!
Likely this was just another case of Democrats trying to screech and moan and do all they can to obstruct and delay the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.
By the way, the documents in question showed that Kavanaugh many times explicitly opposed using racial profiling, according to people who have read them.
-
Ha ha.
Warned he was breaking the rules, Booker released them anyway. It turned out the Kavanaugh emails had been cleared for release hours before. He wasn’t defying anything. It was a stunt.
And Kavanaugh’s views on racial profiling?
The emails showed Kavanaugh to be opposed to racial profiling of all kinds.
Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-met-cory-booker-spartacus-kass-20180906-story.html)
Even CNN can't find anything to extract from the email to make Kavanaugh look bad. Make no mistake though, the approval was sneaky late (4am) after previous denial. In this boxing match, Booker lunged and got caught with a right cross.
The larger battle is making it look like the White House is trying to hide things about Kavanaugh, even though they have everything from his time as a White House lawyer. Democrats want to dig through his time as staff secretary, probably hoping that one of millions of pieces of correspondence can be used to make him look horrible - as opposed to looking at all the material and weighing it appropriately to get an accurate picture.
Even that in itself shouldn't be necessary, he's been a circuit judge for 12 years, I think his opinions and rulings in public record should be more than adequate to determine if he is a good judge or not.
-
"The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in reality is a naked racial set-aside."
I think you're confusing email chains. That's from August 2001 (before Sept 11). That's referring to a practice whereby the DOT gave preference to hiring minority owned firms even when they were not the low bidder, notwithstanding the requirement to favor the low bidder.
His analysis was that the Justices would view the actual reg as window dressing on an illegal form of racial preference. Not sure why Corey thought this was controversial either. It's almost like, he thinks Kavanaugh's legal conclusions about the state of the law are his personal opinion (or more likely he just needs a key word to match so he can say whatever he wants).
He is not discussing actionable intelligence. He is describing a system that, all other factors being equal, what they really want to do is just screen a bunch of random Muslims. Am I missing something? It was talked about a lot at the time, that broadly speaking we should be screening more Muslims because they are the bad guys.
I think you should re-look at this, as I don't think this accurately describes what was disclosed (on either email chain).
-
The legal process is not being followed for release of Kavanaugh's records - according to the law, it is the National Archives that should go through the documents to determine what is to be released. For the Kavanaugh documents, they have a former co-worker of his in the Bush White House making those determinations.
-
Based on what the National Archives says about Presidential libraries (I looked in the Obama context to avoid contamination), the plans of release are in fact coordinated with the Presidents themselves, they're also subject to additional overlays related to other release restrictions.
Where do you see something showing this is not in accordance with the law?
-
The Archives said Wednesday that the decision for Bush's representatives to provide documents directly to the Judiciary Committee, bypassing the agency, "is something that has never happened before."
"This effort by former President Bush does not represent the National Archives or the George W. Bush Presidential Library. The Senate Judiciary Committee is publicly releasing some of these documents on its website, which also do not represent the National Archives," the agency said in a statement.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/402061-national-archives-distances-itself-from-bush-team-on-kavanaugh-documents (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/402061-national-archives-distances-itself-from-bush-team-on-kavanaugh-documents)
Notably, the guy performing the screening (Bill Burck) is the lawyer for multiple Senior Trump White House officials, including Reince Preibus, Steve Bannon, and is also the lawyer for the primary White House official responsible for getting Kavanaugh confirmed (Don McGahn).
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17819062/bill-burck-kavanaugh-explained (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17819062/bill-burck-kavanaugh-explained)
So Kavanaugh is the nominee with the most extreme position anyone has ever heard regarding Presidential immunity from criminal charges or even criminal investigations. Just this week, Kavanaugh refused to say that he found anything illegal or improper about a President offering a pardon in exchange for silence. And Burck represents multiple people from an Administration that has already had multiple criminal convictions.
Remind me again why you flipped out when a former President spoke for 20 minutes on a tarmac with the Attorney General, but somehow this is okay?
-
This was a discussion in the six months after September 11th about how to maintain plane security until a race neutral system could be implemented. How exactly does a US Senator not see a national security basis for exclusion?
Because the email did not discuss any actual security? It just discussed whether racial profiling should occur. Kavanaugh strongly implied it should occur in the short term, while saying he would "generally favor" a race-neutral system in the long term.
Absolutely no national security risk in releasing it.
This is clearly something that the American public has a right to know about someone sitting on the Supreme Court for decades.
Why was this hidden until the day of the hearing?
Why was the hearing not delayed until the documents could be processed? Republicans were fine being one justice short for what, a year?
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/402061-national-archives-distances-itself-from-bush-team-on-kavanaugh-documents (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/402061-national-archives-distances-itself-from-bush-team-on-kavanaugh-documents)
So let me get this straight, your complaint is that Bush's lawyers are intervening to speed up the process by which President Bush's records are released (while the archives does it's own review of the records)?
Seriously, you are complaining because the records are being released faster than they otherwise would be.
So Kavanaugh is the nominee with the most extreme position anyone has ever heard regarding Presidential immunity from criminal charges or even criminal investigations.
Is he? Are you able to substantiate this in any real way? Or are you just going on paraphrases of what you've been told?
Just this week, Kavanaugh refused to say that he found anything illegal or improper about a President offering a pardon in exchange for silence.
I think we generally agree that such conduct would lead to an impeachment.
I think it's interesting though that you seem to find it terrible that President (who has the Constitutional authority to pardon) would pardon some one in their own interests, but that a prosecutor can effectively pardon someone if that person agrees to testify how they want them to do so. I think we all know that prosecutors sometimes trade pardons for specific testimony that may not be accurate. Not to mention, how say in investigating Hillary the prosecutors not only avoided giving plea deals, they actual gave immunity deals for which they got zip, zilch and less we are confused, absolutely no testimony.
So are you uniformly against manipulating prosecutions, pardons, please and immunity? Or only when it's against "bad" guys, or heck let's be honest, only when it helps a certain political party?
And Burck represents multiple people from an Administration that has already had multiple criminal convictions.
Personally I think Dems engage in far more political prosecutions so that's not surprising. We also have, as noted above, many times where Dems were given immunity - in exchange for nothing - which completely hampered any ability to prosecute them and many of the people they worked for, as well as - so far, the convictions being pretty nonsensical.
Remind me again why you flipped out when a former President spoke for 20 minutes on a tarmac with the Attorney General, but somehow this is okay?
The fact that you still don't understand why that was a real issue tells me everything I need to know about why you take the positions you do. There's no justifying that meeting. There's no federal or state prosecutor that is unaware that meeting should never take place.
-
I think it's interesting though that you seem to find it terrible that President (who has the Constitutional authority to pardon) would pardon some one in their own interests, but that a prosecutor can effectively pardon someone if that person agrees to testify how they want them to do so.
You are really climbing into the fortress of criminality now...
-
I think it's interesting though that you seem to find it terrible that President (who has the Constitutional authority to pardon) would pardon some one in their own interests, but that a prosecutor can effectively pardon someone if that person agrees to testify how they want them to do so.
You are really climbing into the fortress of criminality now...
Well, that would certainly start to clear the bar for "high crimes" as basis for impeachment.
There is a world of difference between having both the executive and legal authority to issue pardons, and having the political ability to "get away with it."
So strictly speaking, from a legal perspective, as there doesn't appear to be any language under the Constitution which restricts Trump from behaving in such a manner, it is logical to conclude that he does, in fact have the legal authority to do so.
And Congress would subsequently be justified in impeaching him.
-
That and I flat out acknowledged it would lead to an impeachment.
But I see you dodged the question. You don't have an issue with a prosecutor cutting a deal where they hold over you say a 50-life sentence, but will give you 2 years suspended if you say want they want on the stand? I mean that's a literal bribe, but we somehow give it a pass because we believe prosecutors are doing the "right thing." Manafort got put in solitary pre-trial because the prosecution said he was trying to get a witness to say what he wants, now he's going to get a deal to say what Mueller wants and that's a "totally different thing."
-
There is one major difference between a prosecutor's deal and a Presidential pardon.
The prosecutor's deal includes a clause that requires the dealee to tell the truth. If it is discovered that he lied for whatever reason--even if the prosecutor directed him to--he would be subject to the full sentence.
While this does not guarantee truthfulness from a criminal, it is an incentive. Not the mention the incentive of a prosecutor losing his career if it is discovered that he told a defendant to lie.
So the prosecutor should not be getting the dealee to "say what he wants." He should be getting the dealee to say the truth that he wants.
-
Avoiding 50 to life buys a lot of "truth." What you said is really just an appeal to prosecutors being good guys and ignoring the massive incentives they bring to bear.
Let me ask you, do you want to go on the record and saying that everyone who takes a plea deal, whereby they are required to plead guilty to a "lesser" crime to avoid trial on a greater one, is actually guilty? Here's a random link, stating more than 90% of criminal convictions are the result of guilty pleas (looks like 97%). https://theoutline.com/post/2066/most-criminal-cases-end-in-plea-bargains-not-trials?zd=1&zi=brinznuk (https://theoutline.com/post/2066/most-criminal-cases-end-in-plea-bargains-not-trials?zd=1&zi=brinznuk)
Easy to find bunches more. These are the same prosecutors that you're relying on in making your case that they are getting to the truth.
-
Easy to find bunches more. These are the same prosecutors that you're relying on in making your case that they are getting to the truth.
I'm not so sure about rampant encouragement of perjury. Among other things, if witnesses get caught out in contradictory statements it tends to ruin the case.
There's tons of pressure to dispose of cases and up the win record, but I'm not convinced that large numbers regularly lie - or even testify for that matter.
The other thing is, you can't make a case solely on the testimony of the proverbial "jail house snitch". Manafort wasn't gonna get convicted solely on his number-2 slimeball. It also took a ton of other evidence.
I'm not saying there aren't serious problems with plea bargaining, but it has a lot more to do with subverting the intent of the 5th amendment than HUA name names type pressure.
-
I don't know TheDrake, I tend to think that people who are caught in a crime, where they were the mastermind, have a lot of incentive to say that someone else was behind it in exchange for a deal. There's really not a lot of chance that you could credibly prove they perjured themselves. If party one did every action in the crime and the government can prove party one's involvement and the crime, but they are after party 2, they can get a deal with party one to implicate party 2 by claiming party one was operating at their direction. Party one very credibly explains every detail of the crime and the only evidence of party 2 is this now "credible witness" saying that party 2 did it. Virtually impossible to catch and party one's incentive is massive.
Have you ever watched a tv show about a mafia trial, where a "boss" is caught but they pin it on a flunky?
Not to mention this doesn't even begin to touch how using immunity deals in other cases prevented any possibility of flipping people or pressuring people and in exchange the government received absolutely no testimony in any trial.
-
Avoiding 50 to life buys a lot of "truth." What you said is really just an appeal to prosecutors being good guys and ignoring the massive incentives they bring to bear.
Let me ask you, do you want to go on the record and saying that everyone who takes a plea deal, whereby they are required to plead guilty to a "lesser" crime to avoid trial on a greater one, is actually guilty? Here's a random link, stating more than 90% of criminal convictions are the result of guilty pleas (looks like 97%). https://theoutline.com/post/2066/most-criminal-cases-end-in-plea-bargains-not-trials?zd=1&zi=brinznuk (https://theoutline.com/post/2066/most-criminal-cases-end-in-plea-bargains-not-trials?zd=1&zi=brinznuk)
Easy to find bunches more. These are the same prosecutors that you're relying on in making your case that they are getting to the truth.
In a lot of cases, that is either the prosecutor deciding "there wasn't enough to convict" on a higher charge, so they "talked" the person in question into taking a lesser charge.
There actually are a few instances where people actually sought to be charged under particular laws so that they could challenge them on Constitutional grounds, only the prosecutors subsequently changed the charge to a lesser offense, often a misdemeanor, which left the person incapable of making their desired legal challenge. (Meanwhile, others took the lesser charge in order to simply "make it go away" Larry Craig style.)
-
If party one did every action in the crime and the government can prove party one's involvement and the crime, but they are after party 2, they can get a deal with party one to implicate party 2 by claiming party one was operating at their direction. Party one very credibly explains every detail of the crime and the only evidence of party 2 is this now "credible witness" saying that party 2 did it. Virtually impossible to catch and party one's incentive is massive.
In the case of co-conspirators I don't disagree. The first to turn gets the lighter sentence. In some cases, really really light. That's a far cry from picking somebody at random and pinning something on them, which is how I was reading the discussion. Is it possible that someone might embellish to please the prosecutor? That's not so unlikely. But neither is somebody embellishing (or omitting) for a variety of other reasons from revenge to shielding friends. It's the jury's job to determine credibility at all times - in all the cases where perjury really isn't in play. As you point out, proving perjury is difficult.
So you get Rick Gates, super sleazy guy, testifying against Manafort. The defense battered him. Including pointing out that he was getting a sweetheart deal. One of the Manafort jurors, Paula Duncan, described him to Fox News as nervous and doing whatever he could to save himself.
“So we agreed to throw out his testimony and look at the paperwork, which his name was all over,” she said, adding that they did not find him credible. “I think he would have done anything that he could to preserve himself. That's just obvious in the fact that he flipped on Manafort.”
-
Back to the confirmation hearings...
I demand that the FBI investigate before I tell my story? I'm sorry, I find that baffling. You've decided that you're going to come forward with an avoided painful memory out of a crisis of conscience, then you don't want to tell that story publicly? And instead ask for an investigation of... what exactly? Scouring back again across everything that previous background checks didn't turn up?
It seems clear from her account that there are only three people on the planet that really know if the incident happened. Unless he bragged about it on tape to Billy Bush. I don't know how any investigation resolves that 30 years after the fact. But it could create a delay of several weeks.
-
So what's the big deal about a delay of a few weeks? The last Supreme Court nominee was delayed well over 300 days before a nomination was even accepted. For something as important as a life-time appointment, a few weeks here or there doesn't make much of a difference, does it?
-
I think it does. Particularly when it is pointless.
-
I think if she was confident in her story she'd be willing to testify, I take wanting an investigation to occur - and be publicaly revealed in advance - as her way of avoiding perjury charges. She'll see anything that could conflict with her current story, or any pieces she "remembers" at convenient times before she has to take an oath on what she says.
I mean if she picks a date and it turns out Kavanaugh was in Europe the gig is up.
Grassley is correct, she doesn't need any investigation to tell the truth about what she remembers.
-
Grassley is correct, she doesn't need any investigation to tell the truth about what she remembers.
Tell that to Guiliani. Telling the truth about what you remember isn't hard. :D
-
I think it does. Particularly when it is pointless.
So, what is the important difference that the delay makes? To the substantial number of SC cases being heard over that two week period? To the integrity of the process?
Personally, I doubt very much that the claim being made by Ms Ford will have a decisive effect on the confirmation - and I don't think, from what I know know and what is likely to come out, that it should.
-
I think it does. Particularly when it is pointless.
Why is it pointless? Is the accusation trivial? Is there no chance it is true? If someone thinks it is neither trivial or unbelievable, shouldn't they have the chance to thoroughly investigate it? What's the point of hearings and a vote if not to vet the nominee? Or is it because, in this hyper-partisan atmosphere we live in now, that regardless of what is discovered or heard, it will not change the vote, because no party member will break ranks?
Why is it pointless?
-
We all know why the Dems want to delay, they've demanded delay at every turn. Pretending you don't understand why a delay is material is absurd.
Why should there be a delay in receiving her testimony? She's asking that we not confirm a SC Justice, who happens to be a current Circuit Court judge, based on a claim that she never voiced to anyone for 30 years, apparently mistated when she did raise it in therapy, and has not one single detail to corroborate?
What would the FBI be investigating? The house - she doesn't know where it was. The people? She doesn't know who else was there. Her clothing? Would have been washed 35 years ago, and given the description wouldn't have been likely to have had any material evidence on it even then.
No this is just a request for a deep dive with the presumption of innocence flipped on its head. Can Kavanaugh prove there is no way that on some "day" during the "80's" he wasn't alone in a room at an unspecified location with this person. If not, he must be a rapist and shouldn't be on the court.
This would be endorsement of a standard that would derail any future appointment with or without merit. In our high stakes world that's all this about.
Or do you think any Democrat is honestly going to vote on the nomination based on Kavanaugh's qualifications (which should result in a 95+ favorable vote)?
-
The delay makes more of a political impact than one on the substance of Supreme Court decisions. It fuels those who have the opinion that democrats will stop at nothing to make it difficult to govern while they are in the minority. It encourages last minute showmanship on what should be a very serious accusation that needed to come to light earlier once someone in government knew about it. An investigation could have been done back in July. We don't need the FBI to know that she never confided in anyone until 2012, when she told her therapist that there were four people involved (which Ford says was an error in notetaking).
Perhaps most importantly, it enhances the level of chaos coming out of Washington. The only possible benefit I can imagine is buying time for other accusers to emerge, as we've seen happen in a number of other cases.
-
We all know why the Dems want to delay, they've demanded delay at every turn. Pretending you don't understand why a delay is material is absurd.
Of course we know why Dems want to delay.
We also know why Repubs want to push this through as quickly as possible. ;D
The best part is that it has hobbled one of the Republican reasons to push it through--to put Democratic Senators in Red States in a bind. The idea was to have the vote before the midterms to get those Senators on record as either supporting Trump's nominee (which would anger the Democratic base) or opposing Trump's nominee for no good reason (which could anger Independents or Republicans). Either way, they lose votes.
But now, with a plausible reason to vote against Kavanaugh, they can do so without alienating Independents and persuadable Republicans. They simply need to say that they find Ford credible. :)
Sure, you may have already decided that Ford is lying. But (as you've told me before in other cases), there is no proof that she is lying, so you don't know if she is or isn't. And certainly no proof can be found until this is investigated. So it comes down to how credible people find her. And her credibility won't be diminished if she isn't heard and the charges aren't investigated. In fact, it will make it look like Republicans are trying to protect an attempted rapist by pushing through the nomination before it can be properly ascertained.
And, because of the delay of Garland's nomination, there is no plausible reason why Republicans cannot wait until an investigation is done. I mean, it's been only a few months since he was nominated. Nothing near 300-plus days. ;)
It would be a pity if the Republicans lost control of the Senate before the nomination came to a vote, but that's just another reason McConnell wants to jam this through as quickly as possible, isn't it? ;)
The bottom line is that now it doesn't matter why Democrats want to delay. Now there is a legitimate reason to delay the confirmation.
Now the ball is in the Republican's court. You gotta tell us a solid, legitimate reason not to delay the confirmation a little while and at the risk of putting a rapist on the Supreme Court. ;)
It fuels those who have the opinion that democrats will stop at nothing to make it difficult to govern while they are in the minority.
Well, it has been obvious to even the most disinterested person that Republicans were doing that the entire time they controlled Congress during the Obama Administration. So why should anyone worry about it now? ;)
-
But now, with a plausible reason to vote against Kavanaugh, they can do so without alienating Independents and persuadable Republicans. They simply need to say that they find Ford credible. :)
Which very likely is the point. Ford doesn't have to perjure herself to achieve that goal, if she avoids testifying she can drop the claim later.
Sure, you may have already decided that Ford is lying. But (as you've told me before in other cases), there is no proof that she is lying, so you don't know if she is or isn't.
I don't know if she's lying or not. She could even believe it and be wrong.
What I do know, is that calling for an investigation is nonsense. There is literally nothing to investigate. 35 years after the crime there is no forensic evidence, nor is there any possibility to acquire any. Without any dates or locations, there's no way to prove anyone was in the vicinity (and more likely the reason, no way for Kavanaugh to provide an alibi). She's name two people as present, along with hers' their testimony is the only evidence that we'll ever have.
I do know that by refusing to testify under oath until she can be sure that nothing will come up that shows she perjured yourself is highly suspect and should cause an inference that she is not credible. Even in the best case, it doesn't look as if she can actually prove the claim.
And certainly no proof can be found until this is investigated.
What proof can be found after an investigation? There's no possible forensics here. Without a date or location there's no way to establish whether there are actual witnesses. Anything in the rumor mill is just hearsay.
It's also interesting that she deleting her social media prior to making the claim. That's a lawyer advised move designed to wipe out any basis upon which to question her veracity. Is that as consistent with the implication that she has nothing to hide as implied? Not really. She's demanding the FBI invade Kavanaugh's privacy on her say so without evidence and doesn't want scrutiny herself? He's just as entitled to be believed as her.
So it comes down to how credible people find her. And her credibility won't be diminished if she isn't heard and the charges aren't investigated.
That's why this is pure politics. You just articulated a standard that a believable liar could meet. This should come down to proof, and there isn't any.
In fact, it will make it look like Republicans are trying to protect an attempted rapist by pushing through the nomination before it can be properly ascertained.
They'd be fools to let the idea that the truth can be "properly ascertained" here go. it literally can not. Claiming otherwise is just playing on people being too dumb to understand what can be proven in a 35 year old groping claim with no forensic evidence.
This is literally lowering the bar to accusation = fact.
The bottom line is that now it doesn't matter why Democrats want to delay. Now there is a legitimate reason to delay the confirmation.
No there's not. There's just a claim that there is that doesn't actually survive analysis.
Now the ball is in the Republican's court. You gotta tell us a solid, legitimate reason not to delay the confirmation a little while and at the risk of putting a rapist on the Supreme Court. ;)
You understand that she alleged she was groped. Interesting how you jumped to rapist from that.
-
Or she's hoping the FBI will uncover enough corroborating details that Kavanaugh's nomination will be finished before she has to testify. If the FBI is responsible for sinking Kavanaugh's chances rather than her testimony, it'll be a lot easier for her to get back to her life.
-
Forensics are not the only type of evidence.
There could be something written about it from the time, such as a diary entry or a letter to someone. That would still be a "he said, she said" situation, but it would prove that Ford did not make up the accusation now just because Kavanaugh was being nominated.
Other people could have heard rumors of the situation at the time. Once again, not "proof," but it again show that it wasn't something made up recently.
If he actually is a rapist, there could be other instances with other people, as with the President and his, ahem, "genital-grabbing." Some of them, if they exist, may now come forward.
And do you know for certain that the reason she does not want to testify before an investigation is because she does not want to perjure herself? What is the basis of this claim? Are there not other reasonable reasons for her not to want to go in front of a hostile inquisition board, with members who will lie and try to tear her story and reputation apart, without further proof to back her up? Can't you think of any other reason? ;)
So it comes down to how credible people find her. And her credibility won't be diminished if she isn't heard and the charges aren't investigated.
That's why this is pure politics. You just articulated a standard that a believable liar could meet. This should come down to proof, and there isn't any.
Except that you already stated that there is no longer proof. So if Kavanaugh actually tried to rape her, are you suggesting that we should ignore it, because there no longer is proof?
That's a standard any rapist would love. >:(
Now the ball is in the Republican's court. You gotta tell us a solid, legitimate reason not to delay the confirmation a little while and at the risk of putting a rapist on the Supreme Court. ;)
You understand that she alleged she was groped. Interesting how you jumped to rapist from that.
I understand he tried to pull off her clothes and panties. Since she happened to be wearing a one-piece bathing suit under her clothes (having come to the party after swimming), he was unsuccessful. That sounds like attempted rape to me, not just groping. If the story is true, that would mean he was a frustrated rapist.
Now I'm not saying that he did try to rape Ms. Ford. Right now, we just have these two stories. Frankly, Kavanaugh does not look like the type of person to do such a thing to me. But these are serious charges and should be investigated thoroughly, even if there probably is no evidence any more, just in case there is somewhere. Rushing the confirmation through doesn't help anyone.
Except for Republicans.
So tell me again why we should rush the confirmation through, and possibly put a rapist on the Supreme Court, when it just benefits Republicans?
-
So, What I'm hearing is that any accusation of wrongdoing now disqualifies anyone from public office? Are we going to hold everybody to that standard?
-
If local law enforcement brings up some evidence against all rational argument, they can impeach Kavanaugh later. As a rapist.
-
Do you seriously think that would happen?
That's like saying we should stop worrying about Trump because if he does something wrong he'll just be impeached.
-
Basically if Kavanaugh’s friend doesn’t corroborate her story there certainly is no proof. However if it comes out that they routinely went to parties and got drunk, potentially to the point of blacking or passing out then the accusation could be true and both men could be perfectly honest in saying they have no recollection of it. Failing to interview the friend under oath or having a sworn statement taken from him is a willfully negligent investigation.
-
How did she get to the party? If she was 15 did she drive herself? Walk? Bicycle? Even if you knew nothing else you would definitely remember how you got there so not having that information is very damaging to her credibility. I suppose she could have had a license and drove herself or it could have been within walking or bicycling distance but that hasn't been mentioned and if that's not the case there would be another witness that might have more information. That there is no mention of any of this is very suspect. Or is there something I'm missing?
-
How did she get to the party? If she was 15 did she drive herself? Walk? Bicycle? Even if you knew nothing else you would definitely remember how you got there so not having that information is very damaging to her credibility. I suppose she could have had a license and drove herself or it could have been within walking or bicycling distance but that hasn't been mentioned and if that's not the case there would be another witness that might have more information. That there is no mention of any of this is very suspect. Or is there something I'm missing?
The only thing you are missing is that those questions have never been asked of Ford. So it isn't unusual that all of those details aren't in the media reports.
Presumably these are things an FBI investigation could reveal, were the President or senate committee to request the FBI continue their background investigation on Kavanaugh. If her story has lots of holes an FBI report would bear that out, on the other hand the FBI could find some other corroborating evidence if they looked into the matter. Refusing to do anything other than listen to Ford make the allegation and Kavanaugh deny the allegation is just a show.
-
Do you seriously think that would happen?
That's like saying we should stop worrying about Trump because if he does something wrong he'll just be impeached.
If there was proof that he attempted to rape somebody? Yeah, I do think that would rise to the level of impeachment. If there were unproven accusations like the ones that dogged Clinton? Probably not.
-
Basically if Kavanaugh’s friend doesn’t corroborate her story there certainly is no proof. However if it comes out that they routinely went to parties and got drunk, potentially to the point of blacking or passing out then the accusation could be true and both men could be perfectly honest in saying they have no recollection of it. Failing to interview the friend under oath or having a sworn statement taken from him is a willfully negligent investigation.
I wonder how that interview would go?
"Were you at a house party during the summer of 1982?" Yes
"Where were all of the house parties you went to in the summer of 1982?" I don't recall
"Have you ever been at a party with Christine Ford?" I don't recall
In order to interrogate someone, you have to confront them with some kind of actual facts. There's literally nothing to go on here. Sure, you could have him make the statements that he has made publicly under oath. I don't see what that gets you.
-
So, What I'm hearing is that any accusation of wrongdoing now disqualifies anyone from public office? Are we going to hold everybody to that standard?
Only from the Right. :)
What you should be hearing is that accusations of wrongdoing will be investigated by the FBI before someone is appointed for life to the Supreme Court.
But, of course, you aren't hearing that from Republicans, either. :)
-
Perhaps Kavanaugh should get a special prosecutor so they can hold up his vote until 2020.
-
You made me laugh on that one TheDrake.
Wayward, maybe after Ford commits on the record to an accusation there will be something the FBI can actually investigate. What exactly is the hesitation in requiring that she testify to her claim - which has no other evidence - before it be allowed to derail an SC nomination. Honestly, failing to meet even a minimum baseline evidentiary standard ought to be inherently discrediting.
-
So you think she should file charges against Kavanaugh, since (so I've heard) Maryland does not have a statue of limitations on attempted rape, to increase her credibility?
That should make things interesting. :)
-
Sure, if she thinks that this was an attempted rape she should file the charges. Based on what she described, I understand the events more closely fit a misdemeanor charge with a one year statute of limitations, than an attempted rape charge. Can't see anyway to credibly prove he was trying to rape her on the record (even assuming she's not lying or mistaken).
I also think its very likely Kavanaugh could bring and win a defamation case against her on these facts. I suspect he's been counseled not to do so immediately because that would give her a basis to clam up and refuse to testify. Be interesting to see if he lets it go after the confirmation vote.
-
You made me laugh on that one TheDrake.
Wayward, maybe after Ford commits on the record to an accusation there will be something the FBI can actually investigate. What exactly is the hesitation in requiring that she testify to her claim - which has no other evidence - before it be allowed to derail an SC nomination. Honestly, failing to meet even a minimum baseline evidentiary standard ought to be inherently discrediting.
She is asking to make her statement to the FBI and have them better inform the committee before the hearings. Without looking for any exculpatory or supporting evidence republicans are going to hold the hearing claim it is a he said she said not investigate further and then vote to confirm him. I would bet they don’t call for a further investigation no matter how credible Ford comes across.
-
I would bet they don’t call for a further investigation no matter how credible Ford comes across.
Come now, yossarian, that's a sucker's bet. It took the FBI three days to investigate Thomas' accusations of sexual harassment. If the Senate had asked the FBI to investigate Ford's accusations, they would almost doubtlessly be done by now, and almost certainly by Monday. They just want this thing to go away regardless of the merits and pretend it never happened.
-
What should her punishment be if it at the end of the process it can be conclusively proven that she made the whole thing up and none of it was true at all? There's the case of Brian Banks who served 5 years in prison on a false rape charge. It was proven beyond any doubt that the female made it all up and yet she never served a day in prison, was never even put on probation, and didn't even have to pick up trash on community service. It seems like false charges often aren't taken very seriously.
-
Perjury has a statute of limitations. But you already knew that. There also isn't nearly enough information to prove this vague story didn't happen, any more than proving that it did.
-
No the sucker's bet is believing this is the last of the dirty trick. If the Committee moves forward, Ford will suddenly remember new details, like that she told a friend, who will also come forward (with social media accounts that have been scrubbed for months) to corroborate the tale.
Explain where the idea came from that someone who hasn't filed a police report where the crime occurred should be entitled to have the federal criminal investigation resources applied to a state law matter? There is a lot of handwaiving over substantive justice problems here.
Or would you be comfortable if anyone could turn you into the FBI for a deep dive analysis based on uncorroborated statements of conduct from 35 years ago?
-
Perjury has a statute of limitations but felony sexual assault doesn't in Maryland. I would think her statue of limitations for perjury would be starting nowadays though. I just think it's interesting to see the differences in prison time handed out for sexual assault compared to the perjury charge that could put an innocent man in prison for sexual assault. They are usually pretty lopsided.
-
I was referring to the case you brought up of Brian Banks. That's why she "never served a day in prison" etc. Of course Brian took a plea deal as well. I'll see your anecdote and raise you one.
BRIDGEPORT, Connecticut -- A Long Island woman who falsely accused two Sacred Heart University football players of rape was sentenced in a Connecticut court Thursday.
Nikki Yovino, of South Setauket, pleaded guilty to making up the allegations and was sentenced to three years in prison. She will only serve one year, though, with the other two suspended as part of the plea agreement.
-
Perjury has a statute of limitations but felony sexual assault doesn't in Maryland.
Actually, attempted rape doesn't have a statute of limitations (but it'd be virtually impossible to prove intent even if we accepted what she's said as 100% true). A Fourth degree sexual offense, which is what groping appears to actually be in MD has a one year statute of limitations. People are going to try and claim this should be miss-charged solely for avoiding the statute of limitations.
I would think her statue of limitations for perjury would be starting nowadays though.
I don't think she's provided a sworn statement. Without that she hasn't committed perjury even if she's lying her ass off. It would be defamation or slander at this point - if she's not telling the truth.
-
Perjury has a statute of limitations but felony sexual assault doesn't in Maryland.
Actually, attempted rape doesn't have a statute of limitations (but it'd be virtually impossible to prove intent even if we accepted what she's said as 100% true). A Fourth degree sexual offense, which is what groping appears to actually be in MD has a one year statute of limitations. People are going to try and claim this should be miss-charged solely for avoiding the statute of limitations.
I find it hard to believe there could be enough evidence that could be presented that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. IMO The level of proof needed to simply deny someone a lifetime appointment to the supreme court is much lower than the level of proof needed to put someone in prison.
-
I find it hard to believe there could be enough evidence that could be presented that would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. IMO The level of proof needed to simply deny someone a lifetime appointment to the supreme court is much lower than the level of proof needed to put someone in prison.
Although this isn't how law currently works, I sometimes wonder whether the law should protect the potentially innocent by requiring that all criminal accusations such as this be withheld from the public until such a time as the police, or lawyers, or a prosecutor decided there's enough evidence for a case to be made. At that point the facts could be disclosed to the public. But I really worry about this business of accusations taking on a life of their own. Is it really possible to 'forget' that the cloud of the accusation hangs over someone's head, even if ultimately there isn't enough evidence for a case to be put to trial?
This is sort of in the same department but different door to the issue of propaganda or 'fake news', where just by hearing the spurious story many peoples' minds will already be set and no new information will significantly undo the effect that the initial story had. In the case of random news stories I don't know what the remedy is; but for criminal accusations I feel like more protections are needed if the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" is to remain a real public value.
-
No the sucker's bet is believing this is the last of the dirty trick. If the Committee moves forward, Ford will suddenly remember new details, like that she told a friend, who will also come forward (with social media accounts that have been scrubbed for months) to corroborate the tale.
Which is why an investigation now would be useful. If the friend was interviewed by the FBI now, how could he/she suddenly remember it later? ;)
Explain where the idea came from that someone who hasn't filed a police report where the crime occurred should be entitled to have the federal criminal investigation resources applied to a state law matter? There is a lot of handwaiving over substantive justice problems here.
Or would you be comfortable if anyone could turn you into the FBI for a deep dive analysis based on uncorroborated statements of conduct from 35 years ago?
You have this backwards, Seriati. The FBI investigation woudn't be for Ford; it would be for Kavanaugh.
And while I wouldn't be comfortable from an FBI deep dive, I think I would be more uncomfortable if they didn't do one based on such serious allegations if I were in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Would you like such allegations hanging over your head for the rest of your career? Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
-
Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?
There is literally no such thing as proof of innocence, unless you're talking about producing a recording of someone's entire life to "prove" that a thing never happened?
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?
-
What should her punishment be if it at the end of the process it can be conclusively proven that she made the whole thing up and none of it was true at all? There's the case of Brian Banks who served 5 years in prison on a false rape charge. It was proven beyond any doubt that the female made it all up and yet she never served a day in prison, was never even put on probation, and didn't even have to pick up trash on community service. It seems like false charges often aren't taken very seriously.
You know, I wouldn't mind if she were charged and convicted of perjury if it was shown she lied with mens rea, i.e. she knowingly lied with the purpose of destroying Kavanaugh's reputation.
Good luck with that, though. Because it has been reported that she has previously mentioned this event at least twice over the years; once to her husband and once to a psychologist, IIRC. Which shows this was not made-up in the past few weeks.
Misremembering an event is not a crime, IFAIK, just like not recalling an event is not a crime. Assuming she completely believes what she says (and it certainly appears to be so), you don't have a case.
-
Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?
There is literally no such thing as proof of innocence, unless you're talking about producing a recording of someone's entire life to "prove" that a thing never happened?
True. But wouldn't you feel better if everything reasonable was done to either prove your innocent or guilt? If nothing else, you can point to the investigation and say, "Hey, even the FBI couldn't find proof I did it!" :)
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?
Nope. Explain it to me, please. Because I do find Mrs. Ford credible. And while I can imagine a number of scenarios where Kavanaugh is innocent and no one is lying, I can also imagine one where he is not innocent.
-
Yale Law School chimes in, too. (https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/open-letter-senate-judiciary-committee-yale-law-faculty)
-
True. But wouldn't you feel better if everything reasonable was done to either prove your innocent or guilt? If nothing else, you can point to the investigation and say, "Hey, even the FBI couldn't find proof I did it!" :)
Why are you mentioning proving innocence again? There is no legal definition for innocence under the law; only whether a case for guilt can be made. In the absence of such a case the person IS innocent. Now, if the question was phrased differently, such as "would you voluntarily have the FBI investigate you even with no evidence and no case just to show that you're clean", then maybe that could be a good strategic move to head off such accusations. But that's different from whether asking whether any given person should be assumed to have to prove their innocence on a legal basis; they don't!
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?
Nope. Explain it to me, please. Because I do find Mrs. Ford credible. And while I can imagine a number of scenarios where Kavanaugh is innocent and no one is lying, I can also imagine one where he is not innocent.
It's a double-edged sword because your word "comfortable" assumes that something uncomfortable is now in evidence, which is basically identical to saying that an accusation against a person makes you nervous. And as such you're defending the idea that we should feel nervous at an accusation in and of itself. I'm not even wading in to the details of this case since I don't know them, but you do know that "accusation of wrongdoing" will end up entering in a decision-making process like it or not, and therefore the process of muddying the waters regardless of outcome is the second edge of the sword you're wielding.
-
Why are you mentioning proving innocence again? There is no legal definition for innocence under the law; only whether a case for guilt can be made. In the absence of such a case the person IS innocent. Now, if the question was phrased differently, such as "would you voluntarily have the FBI investigate you even with no evidence and no case just to show that you're clean", then maybe that could be a good strategic move to head off such accusations.
I just like to note that Kavanaugh has had the FBI investigate him six times already on this basis.
Without an on the record statement there are no legitimate claims to investigate. Apparently the goal is to investigate while Ford remains free to change her story to match whatever is uncovered.
-
You have this backwards, Seriati. The FBI investigation woudn't be for Ford; it would be for Kavanaugh.
So nice of Ford and the Democrats to be demanding an FBI investigation for Kavanaugh's benefit.
Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?
Well of course. If such a thing were actually possible. There's a reason that the burden on proof is on the accuser. It's generally impossible to prove innocence. The idea that anyone could PROVE that an event didn't happen 35 years ago is beyond nonsensical. Think about it. There would be no witnesses, cause the event didn't happen. There would be no physical evidence cause it didn't happen, yet the accuser isn't required to produce any because you know none would have survived 35 years.
In this case what would that entail? A detailed alibi for every single day and nigh for the period from what? 1980 through 1984?
And while I wouldn't be comfortable from an FBI deep dive, I think I would be more uncomfortable if they didn't do one based on such serious allegations if I were in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Would you like such allegations hanging over your head for the rest of your career?
And what do you think happens if a Supreme Court Justice is convicted of rape? Do you think they stay on the court in prison. Lol. This is not a magic get out of jail free card.
If there's proof this happened then keeping him off is one thing. If there's no proof it's quite something else.
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
I am completely comfortable with Kavanaugh receiving an appointment. If facts come up that warrant a change in that view so be it.
I think its interesting that we've had many leaders with actual felonies elected and appointed, but this is where you want to draw a line in the sand.
-
True. But wouldn't you feel better if everything reasonable was done to either prove your innocent or guilt? If nothing else, you can point to the investigation and say, "Hey, even the FBI couldn't find proof I did it!" :)
Why are you mentioning proving innocence again? There is no legal definition for innocence under the law; only whether a case for guilt can be made. In the absence of such a case the person IS innocent. Now, if the question was phrased differently, such as "would you voluntarily have the FBI investigate you even with no evidence and no case just to show that you're clean", then maybe that could be a good strategic move to head off such accusations. But that's different from whether asking whether any given person should be assumed to have to prove their innocence on a legal basis; they don't!
You're right. I'm not talking about a legal basis, since this isn't a court trial (unless you include the court of public opinion ;) ).
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
Do you see the double-edged sword your view is?
Nope. Explain it to me, please. Because I do find Mrs. Ford credible. And while I can imagine a number of scenarios where Kavanaugh is innocent and no one is lying, I can also imagine one where he is not innocent.
It's a double-edged sword because your word "comfortable" assumes that something uncomfortable is now in evidence, which is basically identical to saying that an accusation against a person makes you nervous. And as such you're defending the idea that we should feel nervous at an accusation in and of itself. I'm not even wading in to the details of this case since I don't know them, but you do know that "accusation of wrongdoing" will end up entering in a decision-making process like it or not, and therefore the process of muddying the waters regardless of outcome is the second edge of the sword you're wielding.
I still don't quite understand what you're saying. Of course we should be nervous that the accusation was made, for the simple fact that it could be true.
Are you saying that people might make false accusations and "muddy the waters" of the person's reputation? Well, yes, of course. That's always been the case. We knew that all along. But we can't just dismiss accusations just because some might be false. And you, as an individual, can't just dismiss and ignore credible accusations just because you know them to be false. Because your reputation comes from other people, not yourself. So regardless of how innocent you know you are, if other people think you're guilty, your reputation is sunk. :(
I guess my problem is I see no alternative. Do we ignore Ford's accusation simply because we don't see how it can be corroborated? That's precisely what every rapist wants, since he (almost always) can choose the situation to make sure no one else knows.
I'm not saying we immediately assume the accuser is telling the truth. But neither can we immediately assume (or on scant evidence) that the accuser is lying, either. That's why an investigation is warranted. To see if there is any evidence available, one way or another, by an unbiased source (or at least as unbiased as we have).
I dunno. I guess I still don't see the second edge, or at least don't see how we can avoid it without dulling the edge of Truth.
-
You have this backwards, Seriati. The FBI investigation woudn't be for Ford; it would be for Kavanaugh.
So nice of Ford and the Democrats to be demanding an FBI investigation for Kavanaugh's benefit.
Hey, Democrats have been known to be wrong before. ;)
Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?
Well of course. If such a thing were actually possible. There's a reason that the burden on proof is on the accuser. It's generally impossible to prove innocence. The idea that anyone could PROVE that an event didn't happen 35 years ago is beyond nonsensical. Think about it. There would be no witnesses, cause the event didn't happen. There would be no physical evidence cause it didn't happen, yet the accuser isn't required to produce any because you know none would have survived 35 years.
In this case what would that entail? A detailed alibi for every single day and nigh for the period from what? 1980 through 1984?
So you're saying that, unless the accuser has undeniable proof that the event happened, he/she should keep his mouth shut and pretend it didn't happen? Is that the alternative?
I never said it would be possible to absolutely prove an event didn't happen. But if you gather all the evidence and examine it, you will be able to come to a better conclusion than if you don't bother gathering any evidence, or only some. And if after gathering all the evidence, there still isn't enough to decide that the person is guilty, that's a stronger argument that you are innocent than if you haven't looked at all the evidence.
And while I wouldn't be comfortable from an FBI deep dive, I think I would be more uncomfortable if they didn't do one based on such serious allegations if I were in line for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Would you like such allegations hanging over your head for the rest of your career?
And what do you think happens if a Supreme Court Justice is convicted of rape? Do you think they stay on the court in prison. Lol. This is not a magic get out of jail free card.
If there's proof this happened then keeping him off is one thing. If there's no proof it's quite something else.
You seem to think that if there isn't the amount of proof that would get someone convicted in a court of law, that means there is no proof and the whole thing should be ignored.
I would think by now you were familiar enough with situations where you had extremely strong suspicions that someone was probably guilty of a crime, but there wasn't enough proof to convince a jury. Instances where, even though the Justice Department felt that there was nothing to indict, that you felt that there was enough evidence to come to a conclusion. That if you got to vote on the integrity of the person, you would vote to "lock him up!" I'm sure you're familiar with such situations. ;)
The problem here is that it's harder to remove someone from office than to not appoint him in the first place. The standard of proof to get someone removed is higher--even if the person is guilty. Which is why, during elections, accusations can be made even if there is not enough proof to put someone in jail. We trust the people to decide if the accusation alone are enough to warrant not electing a person to office. It's the same with this hearing, where Senators can decide for themselves if there is enough proof even if there is not enough to indict, or even to warrant removal after appointment.
Why are you so intent on making sure they don't have all the information now?
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
I am completely comfortable with Kavanaugh receiving an appointment. If facts come up that warrant a change in that view so be it.
I think its interesting that we've had many leaders with actual felonies elected and appointed, but this is where you want to draw a line in the sand.
You think I'm worried about Republicans investigating leaders? After all the Benghazi hearings? ::) I'm surprised if they don't investigate every Democrat in office!
Where I'm drawing the line is in not investigating what sounds like a credible accusation, based on the fact that they don't want to delay the appointment any longer, when the last appointment was delayed over 300 days, and this hasn't been going on for more than 60 days. Obviously, Republicans have one set of standards for Democrat's nominees, and an entirely different on for their own. >:(
-
And if after gathering all the evidence, there still isn't enough to decide that the person is guilty, that's a stronger argument that you are innocent than if you haven't looked at all the evidence.
What evidence? The issue here isn't undeniable proof, its any proof, or the possibility of proof. And if this were two months ago, yeah okay, let the FBI (or appropriately the local authorities) go through the motions, waste resources, and then firmly announce the foregone conclusion.
Why do I care? I'm no great fan of Kavanaugh, I'm not dying for him to take his seat on the court. But I don't want dirty politics to result in a reward for those practicing it. I don't like more fuel on the FBI Deep State fire that can further erode public confidence. Why do you think they want to stay out of this? I know how fallible memory can be, and the news has saturated and tainted just about any possible witness at this point. Suddenly you get somebody remembering something with all the power and accuracy of Trump's 9/11 accounts.
-
So you're saying that, unless the accuser has undeniable proof that the event happened, he/she should keep his mouth shut and pretend it didn't happen? Is that the alternative?
Undeniable evidence? How about ANY evidence?
There's nothing here that could be credibly investigated. If she swears out a statement either to the Senate or to the MD police, we'd have her claims. Even then, there's no evidence of intent to rape, which flat out means the statute of limitations has expired.
I never said it would be possible to absolutely prove an event didn't happen.
Sure you did, you just called in "prove your innocence."
Since you want to claim that we haven't looked at all the evidence, list it out.
The "witness" has been contacted, said it didn't happen.
The "accused" has been contacted, said it didn't happen.
The "victim" has said it happened, but can't give a location, a date (not even a year) or really anything else, and her own corroborating account doesn't mention Kavanaugh and is factually inconsistent with her claim.
Do you have an address? A date? Something else?
Are you suggesting we look for rumors from 35 years ago? If any of her friends came forward it would mean one of 2 things, either she lied about telling someone, or they are lying about what they know.
Where is this other "evidence" coming from? Fact is you have no idea, all you want is an open ended "digging expedition." That has nothing to do with justice, it has nothing to do with fairness.
Kavanaugh has a stellar record that he can be reviewed on, including in his personal life. In your view we should discount that when we weigh his credibility? Why? What actual basis is there to believe he is lying?
You seem to think that if there isn't the amount of proof that would get someone convicted in a court of law, that means there is no proof and the whole thing should be ignored.
No. There is no proof here.
There is an accusation.
I believe that an accusation without proof is worthless on this matter.
There are no "extremely strong suspicions" of a crime, there is innuendo and a lot of political wishing it to be true.
Why are you so intent on making sure they don't have all the information now?
When did you stop beating your wife?
The standard is what evidence has the accuser brought forward. The answer is none.
The accuser hasn't made a claim that can be investigated and hasn't gone on record. They have all the actual information.
You think I'm worried about Republicans investigating leaders?
No, I think you're hypocritical that an unproven accusation that a teenage boy groped a teenage girl where there is no evidence and its contrary to his entire public life is enough to stop a nomination, but that plenty of existing politicians have worse accusations in their backgrounds and you don't have a problem with it.
Should we disallow anyone from public office that has been accused of any crime? Is that the new standard?
Where I'm drawing the line is in not investigating what sounds like a credible accusation,
Walk me through it. What exactly makes this "sound" credible?
As far as I can tell all that makes it sound credible is that a woman said it.
-
The only thing you are missing is that those questions have never been asked of Ford. So it isn't unusual that all of those details aren't in the media reports.
Presumably these are things an FBI investigation could reveal, were the President or senate committee to request the FBI continue their background investigation on Kavanaugh. If her story has lots of holes an FBI report would bear that out, on the other hand the FBI could find some other corroborating evidence if they looked into the matter. Refusing to do anything other than listen to Ford make the allegation and Kavanaugh deny the allegation is just a show.
These are all questions that the Senate can ask and do not require the FBI. The FBI is a law enforcement agency with a specific purview. This purview does not include investigating accusations of sexual assaults that occurred 35 years ago. I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea of the President of the United States, even under the insistence of Congress, to utilize the FBI to conduct political investigations for political venues. The idea of Hoover and Nixon and Trump or anyone in the future using the FBI as a political tool is disturbing to me. I understand we have the precedent of the Hill investigation. But what I take from that is that the investigation did not clear the matter. I'm sure the Maryland State Police would be happy to conduct an investigation if Ford is willing to give them a sworn statement. After all the FBI has been subjected to in the last few years, I'd rather it stay in it's lane. No matter the results of the investigation, which I imagine would be the same as the Hill investigation, the FBI will be accused by one or both parties of something. Whatever the investigation would uncover, it would not be presented to a criminal court, but it would be used in a political court, the US Senate, which not even the dumbest of Americans would consider as a properly unbiased jury, and the court of public opinion, which is probably even more useless when pursuing justice.
-
Wouldn't you like to do everything you could to prove you were innocent?
Of course, the real question is are you comfortable with appointing a Supreme Court justice who was accused of attempted rape, and we didn't do everything we could to make sure he was innocent? ;)
This generally ignores the idea of the presumption of innocence, but I think others have already pointed this out. Proving you are innocent is something you do in a Soviet trial, not an American one. I understand that the presumption of innocence of the accused generally translates to a presumption of false accusation on the part of the accuser. This is simply the way due process works. I also understand that Kavanaugh is not in a criminal trial, and does not face criminal charges, but is subject to a political court. This, in my opinion, makes the presumption of innocence even more important rather than less, since the motives are suspect and the biases are so obvious. I understand that the presumption of false accusation is a very sore and delicate point when it comes to sexual assault accusations. This is because so many sexual predators, rapists, etc, have evaded justice because of the presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt rather than innocence. Some people would argue that this is a result of patriarchy. I tend to believe it is simply the nature of the crime. Sexual assault and harassment, usually perpetrated by men against women, is often extremely difficult to prove and provide evidence for. It's the same way for fraud when there is no paper trail.
-
Seriati, you have a very narrow definition of "proof."
Are ten people recalling Ford telling them of the incident at the time "proof?"
Is an entry in a diary at the time "proof?"
Is someone hearing rumors of the event at the time "proof?"
Is someone recalling Kavanaugh admitting to the incident years ago "proof?"
Do you deny that the FBI could find at least one of these "proofs?"
Remember, we are not talking about legal, "beyond a reasonable doubt" type "proof." We are talking about the type of proof politics uses. To find one story more reasonable than the other. Maybe not to the level you would need to throw someone in jail, but enough to give more credence to one story over the other. The level one would need for a security clearance, for instance.
The FBI routinely vets candidates for office. They are good at it, at getting people to talk about others, revealing what they really think, what they heard but maybe don't want to talk about. Not to mention the fact that you can go to jail for lying to them. They can find out things others can't.
If nothing else comes up, then that is favorable to Kavanaugh's account. But we won't know it until we look. And if we don't look, there will always be that question whether it was out there or not.
-
Do you deny that the FBI could find at least one of these "proofs?"
In the context of a legal accusations of rape, I find it shameful that we’re even talking about the house that J Wdgar Hoover built should have credible means to “find” that evidence “proved” anything. We’re talking about an organization with a documented history of planting false sexual allegations.
Judges and juries make findings of fact. Proposing that the FBI be interested to do so is a declaration of war against the Constitution
-
I would rather stack SCOTUS with a generation of rapists than create a rule that encourages last minute 30 year old politically motivated rape accusations against every candidate.
Kavanaugh already is a federal judge for life. Please explain Wayward why you are so comfy with that?
-
This is sort of in the same department but different door to the issue of propaganda or 'fake news', where just by hearing the spurious story many peoples' minds will already be set and no new information will significantly undo the effect that the initial story had. In the case of random news stories I don't know what the remedy is; but for criminal accusations I feel like more protections are needed if the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" is to remain a real public value.
"Innocent until proven guilty" died a brutal death in a cold dark alley a long time ago. The only place it gets any traction seems to be in court rooms, and even then, it can be rather dubious.
-
How can you regard a credible accusation where the accuser doesn’t even remember the time the place or the year that the alleged attack occurred?
The only way to get more ridiculous than this is to take that that the child sex abuse allegation that we had against trump earlier where there we didn’t even have the name of an accuser it was some generic unspoken person we can’t even show it was a woman.
-
Kavanaugh already is a federal judge for life. Please explain Wayward why you are so comfy with that?
I’d like to hear why he’s so comfy with Cory Booker who’s actually confessed to sexually assaulting a gril when he was a teen. And also why he’s so comfy with Keith Ellison who is facing highly credible and recent accusations that he physically abused his girlfriend.
-
I'm kinda surprised no one is framing the problem in the following way, but maybe I missed it somewhere. I did read it put this way, but I think it was on Twitter.
A confirmation hearing is not a criminal trial. The goal is not to met justice, but to ascertain the candidate's fitness for the office. It's more of a job interview than a trial. The problem is that at this point, the applicant has been accused of a crime. Even more problematic, depending on your understanding and definition of justice, is that the crime supposedly happened 35 some years ago when the accused was a minor.
So we've had a job applicant accused of a crime. This is where I'm going to start laying out the argument. The Judiciary Committee should not (in reality they cannot) attempt to met justice, but should perform risk mitigation. There is the possibility that the accused, who is applying for a lifetime office of extreme import and power in the United States government, is guilty. You run the risk of placing a sex offender in the lifetime office of extreme import. Because this risk exists, and because there are other candidates who do not pose this risk, it's simply good risk management to drop Kavanaugh and go with a different applicant.
In outline:
A. Kavanaugh should be dropped as a candidate
B. Because he poses a risk that other candidates do not.
This is what argumentation calls a Claim of Policy. You identify a problem. You propose a plan. You show how the plan solves the problem.
Problem: Kavanaugh poses a risk as a Supreme Court Justice
Plan: Drop him and go with someone else.
How it solves: He would no longer be a risk.
By now it should be easy to see some of the problems I kind of have with this argument. First, the actual problem has not been clearly defined. Assuming that Kavanaugh actually commited sexual assault or attempted rape as a 17 year old, what risk does he pose as a Supreme Court Justice?
Depending on your views, it's possible that we already have a sexual criminal on the Supreme Court in the person of Justice Clarence Thomas. Depending on your views, we already have had sexual criminal in the Presidency, and may currently have one. The actual risk/problem has not been clearly defined. The only clear problem is the idea that sexual crimes are proof of bad character, and that bad character is disqualifying for high office. Maybe any office. I'm actually a fan of that argument, but I don't see the majority of people in the United States, in both parties, seeing that as a problem. A good deal of Republicans don't seem to care about the bad character and past civil actions against Donald Trump. Most Democrats didn't seem to care about the allegations against President Clinton. Politically, the idea of bad character being disqualifying is flat. It can't go anywhere.
What other risks/problems does it bring up? Are we worried that Kavanaugh will sexually assault women he works with, like his clerks, or other Justices? There doesn't seem to be anything to support this risk. He's been a judge for how many years? Where are the examples of his sexual crimes?
The actual job of a Justice is to make decisions regarding constitutional law. Does being a sexual criminal effect one's ability to make decisions regarding constitutional law? NFL teams generally don't fire someone because they fight dogs or beat their wives, because it has no bearing on their ability to play football. Recently the NFL had begun firing players because they beat their wives, because it reflected poorly on the NFL, which developed a poor image. It was a political decision. There doesn't seem to be any connection between his ability to make legal decisions and his possible guilt. Again, he's been a judge for how many years? Where are the examples of how his possible guilt have effected his decisions.
Secondly, if any of these are true risks, the simple plan of removing him from consideration as a Supreme Court Justice does not really solve these risks. If these risks are real, then they are just as real for a member of the DC US Court of Appeals. You would have to impeach Kavanaugh.
Lastly, there are the problems that the proposed solution may in fact create as opposed to the ones it may solve. Your solution will keep a possible juvenile sex offender off the Supreme Court. But it will also mean that ANY accusation, no matter the lack of evidence, could be reason to pass over a candidate. You have created a no-risk environment where risks can be easily created. You have created an environment that encourages what the ancient Greeks referred to as "sycophants".
-
The problem is that at this point, the applicant has been accused of a crime. Even more problematic, depending on your understanding and definition of justice, is that the crime supposedly happened 35 some years ago when the accused was a minor.
Problem the second: If the crime occurred while a minor, and if the offense had been "properly handled" at the time, chances are the offense would be part of a sealed record as it involved actions undertaken as a minor.
So we've had a job applicant accused of a crime. This is where I'm going to start laying out the argument. The Judiciary Committee should not (in reality they cannot) attempt to met justice, but should perform risk mitigation. There is the possibility that the accused, who is applying for a lifetime office of extreme import and power in the United States government, is guilty. You run the risk of placing a sex offender in the lifetime office of extreme import. Because this risk exists, and because there are other candidates who do not pose this risk, it's simply good risk management to drop Kavanaugh and go with a different applicant.
Now an additional problem: This presumes that "being a sex offender" is universally a compulsive behavior, and further, that it is untreatable and as such renders them as something much like an alcoholic who shall forevermore remain "in recovery." Except the narrative is that even granting them that much leniency is intolerable.
It also ignores the whole thing of "young, dumb, and full of cum" not that it excuses the behavior, far from it, but the seriousness I'd treat such an offense by a teenager is very different than the same offense being carried out by a middle aged man(or older -- aka "Harvey Weinstein" and/or "Anthony Wiener" both of whom should have known better based on both age, and positions held).
-
Recapping.
Ford claims she was assaulted at a party. She cannot recall when the party was, where it was how she got there, nor how she left. Some of the details have have varied. She currently says 4 other people were there. All 4 of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party - including one that has been a lifelong friend of Ford’s and is the ex wife of a democrat operative.
Kavanaugh has been through six different background investigations without a hint of misconduct found. 65 women that have known him during all phases of his life, teen to now, say they’ve never seen anything that would remotely indicate Kavanaugh would do something like this.
Kavanaugh is pushing to hold hearings on this and wants this cleared. Ford is fighting it and appears to be ready to refuse to testify, making demands that are essentially impossible to comply with and making claims that are contradictory (like she can’t fly but interning in Hawaii) delaying at every opportunity.
This is considered credible and should force Kavanaugh out.
Meanwhile Cory Booker has confessed to sexual assault as a teen and Keith Ellison has had very recent accusations of assaulting a women. This is perfectly acceptable to Ford’s supporters and the left.
Un*censored*ingbelivable
-
30 years is more than enough time to manipulate memory.
The publicity given these last months mute sex charges against top federal appointments are deplorable because they are mob rule actions. Half the country chases the accused with insufficient evidence, while others inevitably accuse the accuser of lying and all sorts of horrors... which creates an environment where sex abuse victims are less likely to come forward.
-
"With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast," Booker wrote of that night. "After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my 'mark.'" The point of Booker's column was how that moment, and his work on the issue after, had changed him -- and his views on women, consent and assault -- forever. "It was a wake-up call," Booker wrote in his Stanford column. "I will never be the same."
This is the problem I have with bringing up accusation’s years after the fact, especially those done in the teenage years. We judge those involved in the moment against today's standards. I do not know one guy in my teen years that did not try to go “for the danger zone”. (every movie we watched encouraged such behavior – which I know does not make it right) Most got the hand slapped away and some were ashamed and learned something about themselves . That’s the thing everyone, men and woman do stupid things, especially teenagers. Most people learn from the experience and try to do better. I truly believe that.
I personally don’t want my character to be defined by a 60 second awkward fumbling attempt at going into the “danger zone”. god it was embarrassing, I had no idea what I was doing or even really why and if anyone was traumatized it was me. The Girl knew how to take care of herself and for that I feel fortunate as it forced me to take a good look at myself and kind of man I wanted to be.
I personally believe Ford and understand her not going to authorities at the time. I also suspect that Kavanaugh remembers. And that the difference between Booker and Ford.
The question I have for Kavanaugh is what they learned. The experience could make Kavanaugh a better Judge or if he cannot face his shadow a really really bad one. Has Kavanaugh had to rule in many sexual assault cases?
And I agree with Pete. If the me too movement intent is to make it safer for woman and men who were abused to come forward this politicizing is going to back fire. That said I don't know how we can go about making the changes that need to happen. In a perfect world the issue would be addressed in the moment before it got to the point of abuse were both parties are given a chance to learn something
-
I personally believe Ford and understand her not going to authorities at the time.
You believe something happened at some point, roughy 36 years ago, in a place and time that nobody can remember, something every single identified witness denies happened.
In other words, the accusation is the only proof you need.
You’re gonna love these rules when they’re applied to you.
-
As Ford’s story falls apart and the lie becomes obvious to anyine with 2 brain cells to rub together, good lord almighty, it’s a miracle! Another one comes forward at te very last minute! Amazing!
Deborah Ramirez says Kavanaugh flashed here at a drunken college party 35 years ago. Ramirez admits gaps in her memory and wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh. By the way, did you know Ramirez is a democrat?
The New Yorker tried to find eyewitnesses... and failed. As with Ford, none of Ramirez’s supporters that believe her saw this incident. They’ve just heard her recent accusations.
Also similarly, others alleged to have been involved deny it happened. Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not.
An unnamed former friend said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” Ramirez and the unnamed friend were close all through their years at Yale, and said that Kavanaugh remained part of their “larger social circle.” According to the story, this friend of Ramirez initially suggested “that Ramirez may have been politically motivated” in coming forward with the allegation.
Ramirez, just like Ford, is lying.
-
I'm sure rightleft will be crushed when their nomination to the Supreme Court is derailed by accusations of sexual assault.
-
Meanwhile Cory Booker has confessed to sexual assault as a teen and Keith Ellison has had very recent accusations of assaulting a women. This is perfectly acceptable to Ford’s supporters and the left.
Why didn't you let your good arguments stand on their own? The whole "meanwhile somebody else did something bad" lacks relevance and diminishes everything else you say.
-
Oh, let's not forget that Michael Avenatti has stepped forward, on Twitter of all places, with the claim that he represents a client and has credible evidence that implicates Kavanaugh in what I can only describe as a "rape ring" of boys who used drugs and alcohol at parties to subsequently gang rape women.
Well, the largest problem was that there was no supposed pattern. Now there is one. The smoke has been produced. The question is whether there is any fire and how hard will it be looked for. At this point, some investigatory body, I would prefer the Maryland State Police but if they really want to talk to the FBI more power to them, should probably do a speedy investigation. The accusation by Ford alone did not have much weight. The accusations of two or more witnesses is enough to change the math to either 1) we have a judge who was a sexual predator in his early teens and/or twenties, or 2) we have a concerted slanderous attack on a sitting federal court judge. One way or the other, someone is going to have to pay a piper.
I'm personally dubious that investigation of continued accusations of wrongdoing that occurred 30-35 years ago will yield much more in the way of evidence. As I've said before, producing evidence for sexual assault can be tough. These new allegations seem to be more solid and more easily investigated rather than the initial Ford accusation though.
And of course, because the setting is a political trial rather than a criminal trial, there are no rules about a burden of proof. Considering the bias involved in the Senate, the Democrats would all probably have voted against him regardless of these accusations, and unless a "smoking gun" is produced (flashback to Clinton defense), most of the Republicans will vote to confirm. This is basically a big show for the American public, with the possible addition of Senators Collins and Murkowski involved. Are you not entertained?
The court of public opinion is now in full swing. The political court is bubbling and about to burst. Two major problems with this.
1. In the court of public opinion, lots of people are not looking for proof. Probably because there isn't any. What we have is probability. An individual's view of the probability of the accusations being true are all tied to rather fuzzy facts/science. What % of sexual assault accusations are proven true? What % of accusations actually occurred? Etc Etc. These kinds of stats are poisonous when it comes to criminal justice, but they are easily grasped when it comes to political opinion. Depending on your point of view, having three women come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct can lead to a high degree of possibility that at least one of them occurred. So we're stuck with opinion based on some fuzzy numbers. None of this is sufficient in a criminal court. They can be persuasive in a political court.
2. We're not just talking about anyone. We're talking about a Federal judge, who may become a Supreme Court Justice. Again, the risk has not been fleshed out, other than the fact that you don't want to be seen rewarding poor behavior, and if any of the assaults did happen, then Kavanaugh is still lying about it and perjuring himself. This has politics all over it. Who do you really trust? Republicans don't trust Democrats and Democrats don't trust Republicans. That's why we don't try criminal cases in Congress.
-
Meanwhile Cory Booker has confessed to sexual assault as a teen and Keith Ellison has had very recent accusations of assaulting a women. This is perfectly acceptable to Ford’s supporters and the left.
Why didn't you let your good arguments stand on their own? The whole "meanwhile somebody else did something bad" lacks relevance and diminishes everything else you say.
I think this is a good point and important when it comes to arguing cases based on the merits of the arguments themselves. Keith Ellison's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Kavanaughs.
Yet, it's important to note that the charges against Ellison and Booker go to the credibility and faith to be put in the Democrats in Congress. Pointing out hipocracy is a way to undercut the argument, and it's valid. Logically, the truth has nothing to do with the messenger. In reality, the boy who cries wolf isn't believed. Democrats have always had a double standard when it comes to unproven sexual crimes. Republicans are automatically guilty, and Democrats get the benefit of the doubt. It goes both ways. Some Republicans believe all kinds of stuff about President Obama and Hillary Clinton, but Trump can do no wrong. We'd all be better off by sticking to principals rather then bending them to suit our political agendas. Hard to do in Congress.
-
Let's bear in mind that Franken was bounced without much struggle or delay, for miming a sexually inappropriate gesture among a few other things. I certainly didn't hear many Democrats pointing out that some Republicans had done much worse than him.
Playing the "but there's somebody else who is bad" game turns into an Oroborous of tail eating until you finally run out of people on the other side to point at. That takes a while, given the dubious nature of most people in politics.
-
Let's bear in mind that Franken was bounced without much struggle or delay, for miming a sexually inappropriate gesture among a few other things. I certainly didn't hear many Democrats pointing out that some Republicans had done much worse than him.
Playing the "but there's somebody else who is bad" game turns into an Oroborous of tail eating until you finally run out of people on the other side to point at. That takes a while, given the dubious nature of most people in politics.
Franken was also caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, when photographic evidence arose. I'm of the opinion that if photographic evidence of Kavanaugh arose of him doing anything close to what the accusations of him state, that Republicans would have dropped him like a hot potato as well.
-
You believe something happened at some point, roughly 36 years ago...
I'm sure rightleft will be crushed when their nomination to the Supreme Court is derailed by accusations of sexual assault.
I do believe Ford. If i'm not mistaken there is evidence of her talking about it with others at or near the time, just not reported to the police?
I don't know - even if she could prove it, at the time or now, I doubt would lead to a conviction. Based on her description of events I wouldn't convict him at the time though I might send him for sensitivity training or some such.
My personal opinion is that for most cases if a woman decides for good reasons or bad not to report a incident and over 10 years have passed she should stick to that decision especially if its they have not well documented it.
So this will surprise you but I don't think the accusations disqualifies Kavanaugh. What happening now is pure politics and neither the right or left look good
-
You believe something happened at some point, roughly 36 years ago...
I'm sure rightleft will be crushed when their nomination to the Supreme Court is derailed by accusations of sexual assault.
I do believe Ford. If i'm not mistaken there is evidence of her talking about it with others at or near the time, just not reported to the police?
Not that I can find. It appears the first time she talked about it with anyone was when she spoke about it with her therapist in 2012.
-
I don't know - even if she could prove it, at the time or now, I doubt would lead to a conviction.
He is alleged to have covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream, attempted to remove her clothing, and forced himself upon her.
If we go with the "she could prove it" hypothetical, unless he was a very good swimmer, he would very likely be convicted today.
-
I don't know if you remember the 80's but I would bet that had she came forward nothing would have come out of it. I doubt very much charges would have been lad. It would have been he said she said, and brushed of of teenage thing.
Even today I doubt a conviction without any physical evidence... and she would have had to come forward immediately.
Maybe not right but that was how it was and something the MeToo movement wants to change... But going back 35 years into the past is not the way to get to where they want to be - it just undermines the movement
If Kavanaugh continued with this behavior eventually something will come out.
-
This just in, a woman's descendants allege that in 1770 Ben Franklin did indeed tug upon her petticoats in a wanton manner most unseemly. They do now agitate that Franklin's name should be stricken from all copies of the Constitution, and that his likeness in portraiture be removed at once from the University of Pennsylvania.
-
rightleft, you wrote "at the time or now" - I thought you were suggesting that if (as one option) this had occurred in the present, it would still not be prosecuted/he would likely not be convicted. Is that not you meant?
-
Yes Sadly - I suspect that today - if two non-public teenagers - evolved in the same incident as described, with no eye witness or physical evidence - Charges would not be laid
Just my opinion. One of the reasons so many girls don't come forward
-
Here we are. Predator until accusation withdrawal, yet innocent until proven guilty.
Even if you could get charges filed, the odds of a conviction are slight.
-
with no eye witness or physical evidence
You seem to be changing the hypothetical - you also wrote "even if she could prove it"
-
sorry I suck
If she could prove it then today - we would have a conviction
In 1980's 50/50 - just teenagers having fun that got out of hand... it was the way it was
-
You know, I am wondering if I could reasonably testify to very much I saw in college 26 years ago. A blank slate is a dangerous thing. I certainly couldn't relate with any certainty who was at which particular party. I could name people I had been to parties with, and antics that went on but not who exactly did what.
I only had one incident really stand out in my mind. I wound up picked up for public intoxication, it was certainly the only time I had been to jail. It was highly formative in terms of negative reinforcement, and I dwelled on it often and somewhat continuously to this day. I know vaguely some of the people who were there because it was a party involving some fellow ROTC cadets. I couldn't name even one with absolute certainty. If somebody suggested somebody however, I might suddenly start remembering they were there. Could I pick out the host of the party? Not without prompting. And even then, I was intoxicated (thus the PI). Memory isn't the best.
What I remember most was how I felt. My frustration, fear, anger, shame, and more. I remember the aftermath vividly the next day. But that evening? I couldn't tell you the kind of music playing, the rough location of the party, the time I left. About the only thing I can say is the street I was crossing at the time I was spotted and detained. Although I'd still have to look the name up, because I'm not even positive about that.
There were probably a couple of other events that I could pull together some details from, but my point is this - could I ever trust it to make an accusation against any of those people? Could anyone ever believe me without any corroboration whatsoever? Especially if I had been seeing one classmate's name and photo splashed on every news site for a month or more?
-
sorry I suck
If she could prove it then today - we would have a conviction
In 1980's 50/50 - just teenagers having fun that got out of hand... it was the way it was
I'm unsure if this is the actual case. I understand this is widely perceived, but I'm unsure if it's true.
According to the report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, The clearance rate for rape cases (which seems to include attempted rape) was 51.1% in 1995, and was 33.6% for rape and 37.7% for sexual assault in 2017. This would seem to indicate that there was a better chance at conviction in a rape case in 1995 then in 2017.
The attempts to extrapolate total number of sexual assault/rape victims from the numbers reported seems a bit like voodoo to me, but I'm not a statistician. Apparently the rate of sexual assaults reported to police have run between 25% to 60% between 1995 and 2010. The number for 2016 is 22.1%. Today the rate is basically close to what it was back in 1995.
Reasons given for not reporting sexual assault to the police have shifted over the years. Between 94 and 98 the percentage who did not report because they believed the police could not or would not help was 8%. In 2010 that number was 15%. I imagine the percentage is even higher today. The top reasons that sexual assault was not reported to the police by females was fear of reprisal, which has also grown, from 17% to 20%, and "other", which is at 30% in 2010. Fear of reprisal and "other" covers 50% of reasons that sexual assault was not reported in 2010.
There IS a great shifting of perception by women that the police cannot or would not help. But I can't really find data that supports this. I know there is a lot of anecdotal stuff out there, but I personally try to base my views off the data, rather than stories. This I why I don't believe that illegal aliens are a huge crime problem, despite all the anecdotal bs that gets thrown out about them.
The only thing that seems to bear on the subject is that in the past, law enforcement did indeed have a better clearance rate for sexual assault cases.
-
The Drake, while you were in the cell, drunk, if a man pressed you to the floor, clamped his hand over your mouth so you couldn't scream, then attempted to forcefully remove your clothing, do you think you would remember that?
And of course, that was all when you were so drunk that you were arrested and placed in a drunk tank - Ford is not claiming she had been that far into her cups.
-
I think a lot of people can remember a lot of things. I don't think she had a bad dream, but can she be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh and not the other guy that was the aggressor? Let's not forget that based on her therapists notes, she wasn't even sure if there were 2 or 4 men in the room.
-
And if memory were so reliable - wouldn't she remember what house she was in? Who invited her to the party? What year it was? You would think so. Why is it that her memory is so selective about this traumatic event that the only detail she can remember is his name with perfect clarity? I'm not saying she is wrong, I'm just saying that memory is unreliable. That's why James Comey wrote his contemporaneous notes on interactions with Trump as soon as possible.
I think you know the studies, Donald, that detail the fallibility of memory - you're a pretty educated dude.
To say nothing of the fact that as it seems, these details came out during therapy. It's not unheard of that a therapist can introduce memories in the process of trying to help someone.
Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.
The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/)
But if you want to be dismissive of science as well as my personal story, knock yourself out.
-
According to the report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Grant do they have data for assault and rape charges involving teenagers?
-
According to the report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Grant do they have data for assault and rape charges involving teenagers?
I'M NOT YOUR DATA HOUND, RL! I HAVE A JOB!
But since you asked nicely: They don't have a specific report on teenagers. They do have a specific report on college aged females. They have basic information on teenagers, like what percentage of sexual assault reports are from teens. I don't really know where the raw data is.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
-
The Drake, while you were in the cell, drunk, if a man pressed you to the floor, clamped his hand over your mouth so you couldn't scream, then attempted to forcefully remove your clothing, do you think you would remember that?
And of course, that was all when you were so drunk that you were arrested and placed in a drunk tank - Ford is not claiming she had been that far into her cups.
I would think that the multiple named eyewitnesses would remember.
If Drake said this happened and every single person, from guards to other arrestees and including his best friend, that he said saw it happen denied it ever happened, and Drake could not tell you when he was arrested, what jail he was taken to, nor when he was released, would you believe it happened?
Ford is claiming this. And it’s as obvious a lie as it appears to be.
Ramirez is refusing to testify. Ford is doing everything she can to avoid it while continuing to delay proceedings. We all know why, lying in semi anonymous letters and media interviews has no penalty. Lying to Congress does.
-
To say nothing of the fact that as it seems, these details came out during therapy.
Where did Ford ever suggest this was a recovered memory? All of her statements have been to the effect that this is a memory that has haunted her since it initially (allegedly) occurred. Her exact words describing the immediate and mid-term effects of the alleged attack were that the attack "derailed me substantially for four or five years" following it and caused her lesser degrees of anxiety even year later. She even talked about debating whether to tell anybody at the time, and whether "I look like someone just attacked me?"but can she be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh and not the other guy that was the aggressor?
Yes, she can, since they were both in her immediate social network. It would actually be far more surprising if she were to mix the two people up.
I do suggest before you get all condescending again, that you would at least make an effort to get Ford's claims correct. Feel free to disbelieve her, but there is no excuse to have misrepresented her statements so thoroughly. Her statements in no way suggest these were recovered memories.
-
Ah. Could Ford theoretically waive confidentiality and have the therapist produce the timely records? Except those probably would not mention the perp’s name.
-
Ah. Could Ford theoretically waive confidentiality and have the therapist produce the timely records? Except those probably would not mention the perp’s name.
Therapist notes have already been made available. They do not mention Kavanaugh. They also contradict details of Ford’s current story.
-
Yes Sadly - I suspect that today - if two non-public teenagers - evolved in the same incident as described, with no eye witness or physical evidence - Charges would not be laid
Just my opinion. One of the reasons so many girls don't come forward
Let’s ask the Duke Lacrosse team about that.
-
Let’s ask the Duke Lacrosse team about that.
different situation - I'm talking about two teenagers, unknown to the public, no famous or rich parents, no psychical evidence, no witness... I still bet that in most cases charges would be filed or that the girl would come forward to file them.
Its not right but happens and in the 1980's the likely hood of charges... sorry. Its why there is a movement to change it but we aren't even close. Ask the woman around you if they experienced unwanted attention and groping... and why they didn't say anything about it.
I think its a mistake for the movement to bring up events such as this one from the past unless its to show why we need to change things now. The idea of convicting or defining someone for something that happened 35 years ago that can't be proven only harms the movement for change.
But this isn't about that. I’m not defending or convicting Kavanaugh. Maybe Kavanaugh is a pig, maybe he likes to try and grab woman by their Pu, maybe sometimes he gets away with it. I don’t think anyone is going to be able to prove it one way or the other.
The GOP has won, they get to decided and if they don’t choose Kavanaugh they will choose another like him. (I don’t think the Democrats are going to win the house or senate) and I don’t think we really care about what really happened 35 years ago only about how it suites our agenda.
-
I wonder if it was just bad luck that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted and harassed only young women who grew up to become radical left wing activists or if it's more like just a lucky coincidence for the Democrats. Or perhaps his behavior toward them is what caused them to become radical leftists.
-
Or that anyone he assaulted who became a radical right wing activist got a different answer on the cost-benefit analysis to come forward or not.
-
The most bizarre thing yet is that apparently Kavanaugh kept a calendar for 36 years.
-
The most bizarre thing yet is that apparently Kavanaugh kept a calendar for 36 years.
Not too bizarre all things considered, there are Mormons who can account for practically every day of their life since they learned how to write.
-
Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact that he was young and a binge drinker, and that he was unaware of how badly he may have "misbehaved" while so far under the influence, all while showing sensitivity to the women who at least convincingly seem to believe that he mistreated them.
Now, as every additional claim is made, his perceived honesty takes a hit. It's not the actions of a drunk 17 year old, 30 odd years ago, that is likely to cause him his biggest challenge; it is the perception that he is being dishonest today, and that he could be perceived as consciously attacking people who he may have already victimized while he was a minor and less than aware of his own actions.
-
Or that anyone he assaulted who became a radical right wing activist got a different answer on the cost-benefit analysis to come forward or not.
A different answer...from whom?
-
Or that anyone he assaulted who became a radical right wing activist got a different answer on the cost-benefit analysis to come forward or not.
A different answer...from whom?
From themselves.
-
DonaldD
"Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact..."
Unless none of it is true. Then what would he be better off doing?
Just for the record I agree with Crunch that they are flat out lying. Can't prove it. Don't know it for sure. Could be wrong. But women have accused men of worse for reasons far less.
-
I don't believe they are fabricating stories deliberately. It's a wildly small pool of people for that - there are only 500 students enrolled over all four years (today, anyway). Half or more of them would be men. Many of them would not have had any interactions.
-
cherrypoptart, without addressing any of the women's claims, Kavanaugh seems to have been involved in drinking to excess across a number of years. This is not exactly unusual behaviour for young men in the USA. But making categorical claims about one's own activities while binge drinking, and seemingly binge drinking over a number of years, is just foolish. To then claim that other people's interpretation of one's actions are "ridiculous" and disparaging those people for making the claims - well, that shows at best a complete lack of self awareness.
Anyway, the "fact" he should have copped to was of drinking wildly to excess in his youth, while being completely inexperienced with both alcohol and his maturing human body. it was not to any particular activity.
-
DonaldD
"Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact..."
Unless none of it is true. Then what would he be better off doing?
Just for the record I agree with Crunch that they are flat out lying. Can't prove it. Don't know it for sure. Could be wrong. But women have accused men of worse for reasons far less.
Don't know about "flat out lying" but I will certainly give a greater than zero chance of the allegation being more motivated by politics than by any other consideration, including reality itself.
Also I am mindful of the psychology studies involving 9/11 and tracking (certain) people's recounting of events over the intervening years. Memory is a very slippery thing, and not as fixed and unchanging as some would like to believe.
For all I know, the accusers memories may have been particularly vivid fantasies/nightmares they experienced during that time frame and the lines have become blurred between the two over time. An alternate more benign version may be that the event or something like it may have happened, but involved different people, and the memory of it has morphed over the intervening years for whatever reason.
That date rape drugs and overly intoxicated states also tends to result in "dream like recall" of events just further confuses things when it comes to separation of dreams from reality even for the perfectly sane.
Edit: Would rather not see this morph into discussions about "rape fantasies" and their prevalence or lack thereof, but it is something to be considered as well.
-
I think the best reason for Kavanaugh to react with more humility and respect for the accusers is that he wouldn't sound like every other man caught out committing sexual assault. Innocent or not, he followed the script almost to the letter and his supporters have been chiming in on cue.
-
I think the best reason for Kavanaugh to react with more humility and respect for the accusers is that he wouldn't sound like every other man caught out committing sexual assault. Innocent or not, he followed the script almost to the letter and his supporters have been chiming in on cue.
That sounds like a Kafkatrap to me. There is no doubt a certain response dictated by legal expertise that all people are instructed to follow, innocent or not. The "if you're innocent then why deny everything like a guilty person" answer has been referred to as naive and dangerous in my recollection. Such responses to accusations seem to me to be indicative of something in American culture and very little to do with any particular individual in it.
Maybe if there were positive, redemptive rewards for admitting to wrongdoing, rather than obvious punitive public vengeance, we wouldn't see this type of artificial response that requires defensive measures to be taken regardless of whether you're guilty or not. The public claims it wants confession, but it only actually encourages doubling down on denying everything.
-
Well I agree there was a script. I wonder now if the Avenatti's bizarre announcement of news in 48 hours, wasn't because another "claim" backed out at the last moment and they needed something to bridge the gap. Any one read the latest claim?
The person making it seems to claim that she went to multiple parties where there was an active rape room ongoing, to which she eventually fell victim. I'm sorry, what? She went to multiple parties where a deliberate and repeated practice of gang rape was occurring, of which she was aware, and she kept going? Any really want to defend that as plausible? There is zero chance this occurred without dozens of witnesses and victims.
"Victim" number 2's best recollection is that she saw a penis and she saw Kavanaugh adjusting his pants, but she wasn't sure it was his penis, and she was falling down drunk at the time.
Victim number 1, apparently, never mentioned anything about the events until 30 years later, and then has sequentially filled in more details (and more specific details) over time. Her husbands confirmation was that she mentioned an assault when they got married and only gave more details later. Is a coincidence that as she filled in more details she attached the most prominent person that fit the basic memory? If you remember an attack from a dark haired boy at a specific school, and 30 years later you get access to pictures of a famous one from that school, does it influence that memory? Certainly could.
What weight do I give to the "multiple" accounts. literally none. This "train" if you'll forgive the expression was deliberately organized by the Dems, and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least one more, this time one that might actually sound credible - which is a tactic to make the uncredible accounts that have come before seem more realistic.
Fact is NO ONE in the public has heard from Ford, why does anyone have an opinion on her credibility?
-
I'm also willing to speculate that the only reason Kavanaugh didn't file slander charges against Ford already is that doing so would have given her an excuse to refuse to testify. If his nomination doesn't go forward, I'd hope he'd file charges against each of the accusers and their attorneys forcing them to prove their claims.
-
I'm also willing to speculate that the only reason Kavanaugh didn't file slander charges against Ford already is that doing so would have given her an excuse to refuse to testify. If his nomination doesn't go forward, I'd hope he'd file charges against each of the accusers and their attorneys forcing them to prove their claims.
Good luck with that, Seriati. :D
Can you imagine it? Ford testifies under oath that, according to her best recollection, Kavanaugh did it. She says so with complete certainty.
And what does Kavanaugh's side say? "You're memory is faulty." And she says, "No, it isn't. I was there. I remember what I remember."
Maybe Kavanaugh's attorneys could convince a jury that her memories were faulty. But how can they prove that she should believe they were faulty? If she honestly believes in what she remembers (and from the little I've heard about this, she most certainly does), how can you charge her with slander? No men reas.
If the jury convicted her, then anyone who mis-remembered something would be liable of slander. Or perjury, for that matter. Which means every government official who testified "to the best of my recollections" would be liable to go to jail.
As I said, good luck with that. ;D
-
It's not that hard to show the way the claims are made has caused damage to his reputation. False accusations of crimes are routinely the basis of slander actions.
He doesn't have to prove he didn't do it. Her defense, is to assert that the statements are true - which would require proof. In any event, it's almost impossible to believe it wouldn't go to trial, especially now with the Avenatti clown show getting involved.
-
Interesting, the polygraph test Ford passed didn't involve any direct questions about the assault. It only asked about a written statement that was prepared with her lawyer. Anyone have any experience on this? That seems highly unusual to me, reviewers have noted that multiple baseline and surprise questions should have been asked in order to establish an evaluation framework. Personally, I find the indirect way it was conducted as something designed to make it easier to pass.
-
Which means every government official who testified "to the best of my recollections" would be liable to go to jail.
Oh, good. When can we begin this program? :D
-
So - yeah, you as the plaintiff do have to prove the statement is false. The burden is on K.
You can't sue someone for slander and force them to prove the statement is true. Her lack of specificity makes it extremely hard to prove false.
It would get dismissed immediately.
-
Here's a simple to understand description of this works. It's nuanced but it simple.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html)
So couple of points, statements in judicial proceedings are privileged. That is why you don't get defamation suits off of them.
Second, truth is a defense. There is no defense that says, "well it could be true, and they can't prove otherwise."
-
That sounds like a Kafkatrap to me. There is no doubt a certain response dictated by legal expertise that all people are instructed to follow, innocent or not. The "if you're innocent then why deny everything like a guilty person" answer has been referred to as naive and dangerous in my recollection. Such responses to accusations seem to me to be indicative of something in American culture and very little to do with any particular individual in it.
Maybe if there were positive, redemptive rewards for admitting to wrongdoing, rather than obvious punitive public vengeance, we wouldn't see this type of artificial response that requires defensive measures to be taken regardless of whether you're guilty or not. The public claims it wants confession, but it only actually encourages doubling down on denying everything.
I'm not saying he should admit wrongdoing, just demonstrate some awareness of the challenges facing women who aren't able to make timely accusations.
Seriati, the defense would be that Ford believes the statements are true. Assuming a judge counts as a public figure (and I think someone being nominated for the SC would), Kavanaugh would have to prove intentional or reckless lying.
-
That's a fair point NobleHunter. That in the context of him being a public figure he'd have to prove some form of malice. I think he'd have a fair shot of that in this context, where the political ramifications are almost certainly the paramount reason for coming forward.
I note that none of these accusers have filed charges as of yet. That technical difference means they can't be convicted by the state independently. One dirty trick after another.
Interested to see if the hearing goes off tomorrow. I'm not as skeptical as others, but I'm struck that I've still never seen Ford or heard her voice. The media insisted in prior cases on hearing from the victims and forcing them to make accounts (more true when they wanted to discredit people accusing Democrats, but generally true in all cases). Yet here, silence is allowed. It's pretty clear there is a concerted effort not to provide any information that could be used to question her credibility.
-
While this COULD be total fabrication by those willing to lie for their political motives I find it interesting how casually dismissed the possibility of one line of thinking:
I had no faith that I could "prove" his guilt at the time, and having done so, that any significant punishment would have occurred. I opted to move past this this and try to get on with my life. While it always stuck with me, railing against him would serve no purpose. Eventually I did indeed move on and gave my attacker/harasser/abuser as little thought as possible. Now however, this person is being considered for a position of power. One which the facade of morality and good judgement is a part if not a requirement. The idea of this monster, as I still view him as such, being in a position of (this much) power over others sickens me. I am willing to face the obvious slings and excuses of those who will doubtlessly defend them in an attempt to prevent that.
I'm sure few if any articulate the thought process in such a way, but it seems perfectly plausible to me. That this possibility seems to occur to so few always perplexes me. "Why not come forward sooner?" "Why not press charges?" "The timing means it's OBVIOUSLY a lie..." and so on. I tend to lean towards what I see as the far more logical and likely result.
Sure they may (all) be liars. But it's equally as plausible to me, and probably more so, that they are not, are remembering clearly and are attempting to do a public service to at least warn people that the face being presented is not representative of the person behind it.
-
D.W. far from ignoring that perspective, that's literally the only reason this is being treated seriously at all. There is no evidence, we all know there isn't going to be any evidence, no proof of guilt or innocence. This is literally going to come down to a question of whether an accusation that CAN'T be proven is enough.
The only, and I mean the only, reason we're even considering the possibility that it could be is out of empathy for the victim. And we're only getting there by throwing away our entire set of principals that requires we treat people as innocent until proven guilty. And BS on this being an interview, people are ruining this man's life and they DON'T REALLY CARE about whether or not the claims are true.
-
All the sources I can find state pretty much the same thing, this one states it the most clearly. Emphasis mine.
What Do You Have To Prove?
There are two things you have to prove to be true in order to win a case of defamation of character in the court of law. First of all, you have to prove without a doubt that what was said or written about you is not true. Once you have proved that the statement is, in fact, false you have to prove that the other person said the false statement with the intent of causing you some form of harm.
source (https://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-do-you-prove-a-defamation-of-character-claim/)
-
Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact that he was young and a binge drinker, and that he was unaware of how badly he may have "misbehaved" while so far under the influence, all while showing sensitivity to the women who at least convincingly seem to believe that he mistreated them.
Now, as every additional claim is made, his perceived honesty takes a hit. It's not the actions of a drunk 17 year old, 30 odd years ago, that is likely to cause him his biggest challenge; it is the perception that he is being dishonest today, and that he could be perceived as consciously attacking people who he may have already victimized while he was a minor and less than aware of his own actions.
What crap. Kavanaugh lying to demonstrate honesty is so orwellian.
-
Ok, now we’re out there. The allegation now is that Kavanaugh led a “gang rape gang” in the early 80’s. Still no eyewitnesses or any other evidence whatsoever. No doubt this will amaze the dozens of men and women who knew Kavanaugh from that period and have already attested to his good character.
Stay tuned, I’m sure we’ll soon find out that Kavanaugh was the ring leeader for pizza gate.
-
I had no faith that I could "prove" his guilt at the time, and having done so, that any significant punishment would have occurred. I opted to move past this this and try to get on with my life. While it always stuck with me, railing against him would serve no purpose. Eventually I did indeed move on and gave my attacker/harasser/abuser as little thought as possible. Now however, this person is being considered for a position of power. One which the facade of morality and good judgement is a part if not a requirement. The idea of this monster, as I still view him as such, being in a position of (this much) power over others sickens me. I am willing to face the obvious slings and excuses of those who will doubtlessly defend them in an attempt to prevent that.
What I find strange about this line of thinking is: why I would think anyone should believe me today, if I felt I could not prove his guilt 35 years ago? If I don't think anyone is going to believe me, or should believe me, why would I come forward? The same thinking that kept someone from speaking out when the crime occurred is still valid.
I admit it's perfectly plausible. I don't expect people to think rationally or logically. I would be surprised that a University Professor would not have more forethought, but I suppose it's personal.
Another thing that is strange to me is why I would think that the moral behavior of someone I knew when I was 16 has any bearing on their moral behavior now. I knew lots of a-holes in high school. I knew a good deal in college. Certainly, none of them tried to stick their penises in me. But I certainly was bullied, held down, restrained. I honestly have no idea if their behavior back then has any bearing on what kind of people they are today. I suppose some of them are still a-holes. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised. But I wouldn't know unless I were in contact with them and were around them. As far as I know, they're all fine people now. I know I wasn't always kind in my actions or thoughts to some people who were socially awkward or overweight. I know some of those people today. I recognize they were better people then and probably better people now. But I know I'm not the same person I was when I was 17.
For me, any lingering feelings of anger or injustice are personalized. I don't think I'd ever come out with "Chris was a real jerk in High School/College. He doesn't deserve to be the Judge/Governor/Senator/Etc". I'd just hope one day for the opportunity to kick the living *censored* out of him.
I suppose that's just me. Maybe a woman wouldn't feel empowered to the point that she would feel capable of achieving some level of catharsis/revenge through violence. I know my wife would, though.
I don't necessarily think this makes the accusers in this case liars. It just makes their thought process foreign to me. The idea that you would let it go until they are nominated as a Supreme Court Justice is weird to me. Did it not mean anything when he was nominated as a Federal Circuit Court Judge? I dunno.
-
Ok, now we’re out there. The allegation now is that Kavanaugh led a “gang rape gang” in the early 80’s. Still no eyewitnesses or any other evidence whatsoever. No doubt this will amaze the dozens of men and women who knew Kavanaugh from that period and have already attested to his good character.
Dude, where have you been? That came out Sunday night.
-
What I find strange about this line of thinking is: why I would think anyone should believe me today, if I felt I could not prove his guilt 35 years ago? If I don't think anyone is going to believe me, or should believe me, why would I come forward? The same thinking that kept someone from speaking out when the crime occurred is still valid
I think that misses the point. I said "had no faith I could prove his guilt", that is different than "nobody believing you".
This is NOT a legal case. This is someone (or multiple people now) coming forward and suggesting, Kavanaugh is not worthy of the respect implied of this post. That he is NOT the type of person that should be confirmed. This is a plea for morality, not "justice" under our legal system which they know would fail them at this point.
Should our world be one where victims can come forward immediately without shame and be celebrated for doing their part to safeguard the rest of us from predators? Sure, but it certainly wasn't the case then, and still isn't yet today.
Maybe soon we'll dispense with with privacy all together and record every moment of our lives and there will be no shadows for the monsters to hide in. "Proof" will be easy to come by and victims, not so much... But that's not the reality we live in.
The idea that you would let it go until they are nominated as a Supreme Court Justice is weird to me. Did it not mean anything when he was nominated as a Federal Circuit Court Judge? I dunno.
Two parts to this. Lets say this was traumatic but you are never faced with this name in your day to day life let alone see them in person. Then suddenly there they are, in the news, on your TV. Not only that, but they are about to achieve some serious prestige and the power to exert long lasting control over not just you but all women in this country for the rest of their life. I think it's perfectly plausible to believe someone would ask, "if not now, when?" and be moved to act, knowing they will fault themselves forever if they continued to keep quiet.
It may be convenient to believe that when such accusations and dirty laundry is aired just when a judge is about to achieve a S.C. nomination or a presidential candidate is closing in on a nomination or electoral win, that it's "just politics", but I tend to see it differently. Could it be I'm playing into some operator dastardly plan? Sure. Stranger and more deplorable things happen when it comes to politics but my reflex is to believe plausible and significant accusations, even when leveled at politicians or candidates I like.
-
Should our world be one where victims can come forward immediately without shame and be celebrated for doing their part to safeguard the rest of us from predators? Sure, but it certainly wasn't the case then, and still isn't yet today.
This point may not be as straightforward as it seems. Maybe it should also be a world where when a person is accused of a crime they have the right to defend themselves in court and have the matter settled, rather than be the subject of a "news story" instead of a judge's ruling. On the one hand the courts of law aren't everything and shouldn't be the only venue in which to discuss matters of morality; but on the other hand when criminal matters are brought up only as a matter of public opinion then you end up with an effective kangaroo court and no defense available.
I don't like the idea of people feeling like they must be silent just because they don't have substantial evidence to bring to a courtroom. On the other hand I don't like the idea that a person doesn't need evidence to have a valid opinion of someone else's criminality. The latter scenario scares me more, actually, than does the idea of people feeling cowed into silence when wronged. This gets into relativism territory, where a person's "point of view" of whether a crime was committed is "equally as valid" as anyone else's. And it's true that this doesn't have to involve anyone lying; it's clear enough that one person can be certain they were raped while another is certain they never even went to a party. Heck, I'll even endorse the idea that Sliders was an accurate portrayal of reality and that people jump universes into extremely similar ones with slightly different pasts, rather than submit that a person is marred by someone else merely saying so. And take into account, when I say this, that I share the public's vehement distaste for sexual predators.
I'm reminded in all of this of the accusations against Michael Jackson, of all people, where the more I study about the story the more it begins to look like "convincing" accusations probably ruined someone's life. In the scenario where he was guilty, we might say it seems a shame for such a predator to walk free. On the other hand if he wasn't guilty then a very good man was largely destroyed by a power play. I would fight to protect the innocent man far harder than to catch the guilty man.
-
I'm with you on almost all of that Fenring. The only distinction I make is that these are, or tend to be, people being considered for considerable power over others. This is a job interview, or in other cases an election. The context is different than a court of law, even if the stakes are no less serious.
Asking the government body or the people of the country, "are you SURE you want this person in power?" is just not the same thing as the world of evidence, proof and jurors.
We should be skeptical, but in this case, we are being asked to place a bet. I would put my money elsewhere.
-
Ok, now we’re out there. The allegation now is that Kavanaugh led a “gang rape gang” in the early 80’s. Still no eyewitnesses or any other evidence whatsoever. No doubt this will amaze the dozens of men and women who knew Kavanaugh from that period and have already attested to his good character.
Dude, where have you been? That came out Sunday night.
What? What day is it? How long have I been out?
I thought Avenatti just came out wuth this.
-
Asking the government body or the people of the country, "are you SURE you want this person in power?" is just not the same thing as the world of evidence, proof and jurors.
We should be skeptical, but in this case, we are being asked to place a bet. I would put my money elsewhere.
But hasn't it been brought up already that the job qualification doesn't necessarily include "paragon of moral virtue"? We may argue that the President, for instance, has various duties, one of which is to be the figurehead of American leadership. As such, his "skill" is in appearing to be upstanding (which is why I think so many people hate Trump to the level that they do). But I'm not sure that SCOTUS Justices should be interpreted as also having that same job qualification - that of appearing as a moral leader to be followed as an example. Rather, I think their job description is more or less "the best person at interpreting the law". Technically a robot could do that very well if it was quite sophisticated, even if it lacked all "human" traits that could be morally assessed. I could well imagine a case where a sociopathic person, with no remorse or conscience, could still be well equipped with the intellectual machinery to be very effective at that job. I'm not saying this would be my first choice, all things being equal, but I'm just not sure where this idea came in that you're "gambling" on the new justice being a paragon. Isn't the issue whether he's shown in the past that he's gifted in the law?
-
Asking the government body or the people of the country, "are you SURE you want this person in power?" is just not the same thing as the world of evidence, proof and jurors.
We should be skeptical, but in this case, we are being asked to place a bet. I would put my money elsewhere.
But hasn't it been brought up already that the job qualification doesn't necessarily include "paragon of moral virtue"? We may argue that the President, for instance, has various duties, one of which is to be the figurehead of American leadership. As such, his "skill" is in appearing to be upstanding (which is why I think so many people hate Trump to the level that they do). But I'm not sure that SCOTUS Justices should be interpreted as also having that same job qualification - that of appearing as a moral leader to be followed as an example. Rather, I think their job description is more or less "the best person at interpreting the law". Technically a robot could do that very well if it was quite sophisticated, even if it lacked all "human" traits that could be morally assessed. I could well imagine a case where a sociopathic person, with no remorse or conscience, could still be well equipped with the intellectual machinery to be very effective at that job. I'm not saying this would be my first choice, all things being equal, but I'm just not sure where this idea came in that you're "gambling" on the new justice being a paragon. Isn't the issue whether he's shown in the past that he's gifted in the law?
Well, if you frame it in the context of "I want justices who will legislate from the bench" the "paragon of moral virtue" (so long as it is their moral virtues being presented) becomes critically important.
Otherwise ruling on matters of letter of the law could as you said, be quite effectively settled by total sociopaths. In some cases, it might even be better served. However, we want there to be more to it than just the letter of law, and as I've becoming increasingly convinced of, most people have little interest in actual justice being rendered. They simply want to extract their proverbial pound-of-flesh from those they consider to either be undeserving, or an evil-doer, if not both.
Of course, strictly applied justice is also potentially a frightening thing to anybody with a lick of sense.
-
There are legal and moral components to being a judge. After all, many of the most important supreme court cases are to resolve inherent conflict between different laws. Or to create certainty out of broad guidelines, like the 4th amendment cases that ask "what should be considered reasonable?".
Furthermore, one might think that a justice who were indifferent to the right of women to consent would also be unsympathetic to women's rights in other areas. This would weigh on their ability to fairly apply the law. Of course, I think it is much easier and wiser to study a judges prior rulings and opinions to know how they will interpret the law than to examine his behavior at prep school keg parties.
The other part is intangible. Is this someone we want to be enshrined as one of the best people our nation has to offer? Someone who will be written into the history books in a way that a DC Circuit judge would not be?
Is a cloud of suspicion enough to outweigh an entire career? I guess we'll find out.
-
Caution: Cheekiness
Well now if I read the latest story correctly it looks like Trump has paid off two stooges to act as scapegoats for Kavenaugh's felonious sexual assault on a minor and they are falling on their swords to take the blame. Either that or Ford was totally wrong and put the blame on the wrong guy, actually guys.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-faces-sexual-misconduct-112945406.html#mycomments
"Two men have since come forward independently to say that they were responsible for the “encounter” and not Mr Kavanaugh, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee."
--------------------------------------------------------
All of this misremembering reminds me of that movie The Final Cut with Robin Williams where they live in a society that uses an implant to record your whole life and (maybe a spoiler alert but not too much) he goes through his life thinking he did something terribly wrong as a child but after he sees the recording of it decades later he sees it wasn't nearly so bad as he thought.
This whole thing could go in that direction or it could go in the direction of another movie called The Hunt with Mads Mikkelsen. I probably wouldn't have watched the movie if I'd known what it was about but I wanted to see more of that actor so saw it blind without knowing anything about it and it turned out to be a really good sort of horror movie sort of like the Final Destination movies not in the sense that a lot of people were dying but in the sense that this is what could really happen to somebody and actually does happen to people all the time and there's no really good way to protect yourself and nothing you can really do about it. Hopefully not giving anything away but spoiler alert just in case it's about a guy falsely accused of a sex crime against a minor and how can you prove your innocence? The short answer is you can't. All it takes is the accusation and then may as well stick the proverbial fork in you because you're done.
And the last piece of cinema (if a TV series can be considered cinema which I looked up but didn't find a good answer to) this reminds me of is Remington Steele where for many situations Mr. Steele encounters he seems to have a movie he saw that touches on the key point in some enlightening way.
Going back to the false memories thing, those seem to be incredibly dangerous, almost like a loaded gun, or walking around with a trap ready to spring at any moment that could put a man in a cage for years or maybe even life, meaning someone could put an innocent man in prison and be perfectly sure they are doing the right thing the whole time. I'm not sure how that is different from a form of insanity that is a threat to others and maybe even yourself.
-
Story is pretty thin so far. Two unidentified men who have only talked to Senate Republicans?
If they were paid off, I hope it was a lot because I can imagine that's the end of their careers. Unless they are going to dispute the details of the encounter as ford tells it. Of course Ford is so vague about details, just about anybody could claim responsibility if they wanted to. They don't have to prove they were at the party that night, because we don't know where or when it was.
-
We see much of the left supporting Ford and her accusation. Essentially, Kavanaugh has to prove he didn't do it.
Should that same standard apply to Ford with these two men who say they did it? Should she now have to prove they didn't?
-
This is a job interview, or in other cases an election.
This is not a job interview. If it were a job interview then Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified people ever to apply and the vote should have been 100 -0. Instead, Democrat's announced within 10 minutes they were voting no, including, as you recall, one that had a rejection form pre-made with a fill in the blank name.
The idea that destroying a person is part of a job interview is insane. No matter what, there's no way for him to walk away and stay on the Circuit Court. You're literally talking about removing him from public office and destroying him as a person.
Notwithstanding, that his actual JOB record is stellar, that his support for women on the record is stellar, that the people who know from his personal life say that is stellar as well.
-
I don't know about where you work, but where I do, no matter how impressive my job history and qualifications were, if there were allegations floating around that I could be a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen, they would find a reason to keep looking. If there was a chance that this info would come out and I would be a liability when sent to discuss projects with female clients or prospective clients; they'd find a reason to keep looking.
And that doesn't even touch on the fact that a president, senator, congressman or judge could be legislating or ruling on matters of women's rights. A task one would hope be done by people who don't give others reason to believe they don't respect women.
Of course all of that doesn't excuse the fact that some Democrats were going to stall, rave and vote no, no matter who was put forward. I'd call it childish but after seeing what happened to our last president I can't say I'm shocked by the reversal.
-
I don't know about where you work, but where I do, no matter how impressive my job history and qualifications were, if there were allegations floating around that I could be a sexual harassment suit waiting to happen, they would find a reason to keep looking. If there was a chance that this info would come out and I would be a liability when sent to discuss projects with female clients or prospective clients; they'd find a reason to keep looking.
Except from what I am hearing on here, it seems that the accusations are all from his college years or earlier, on the order of 30+ years ago, even for the most outrageous claims.
No indication that the behavior has continued, and based on comments regarding his judicial records and other written statements from his operating in an official capacity for the government, those likewise fail to indicate "a problem" absent political axes wanting to ground into him.
IF he did it, he isn't fessing up, which is concerning(but reasonable given Franken's fate). But at the same time, "recency" doesn't appear to exist in his specific case, so it appears he "grew out of it" and possibly burried the memories in shame. Or he is remembering things correctly enough and it never happened, or at least, didn't happen as described.
-
Doxxing the republican senators so liberals could hunt them down was a low point.
-
They're public figures. It would be easy enough to find out where they live, although it was still despicable.
The doxxing of Christine Blasey Ford was much worse.
-
So I watched most of the hearing. Take away's:
Ford - She's very believable, I'm inclined to believe that she was assaulted by someone. I think she believes it was Kavanaugh. I thought she said a few things she didn't believe mostly on the alcohol consumption by her (exactly one beer) and her claims about Judge and Kavanaugh being extremely inebriated before they arrived, but that's based on personal observation of how she answered the question (and the express knowledge of how her attorneys would have told her those points are relevant).
On her questioning. I thought the Dem's were an embarrassment. For people seeking to get to the bottom of it, they had an amazing lack of interest in asking any actual questions. After 10 senator's questions, I counted zero that went towards establishing any facts related to credibility. A whole lot of speeches though. It's pretty clear they either don't care if she's truthful, or they believe her to be truthful without any investigation (in which case their calls to need an investigation are nonsense).
I thought the special counsel did a good and respectful job of trying to get information in a non-hostile way. I can see why some were upset and thought she should have been more aggressive, but she was the only person in the room that seemed interested in finding out what actually happened. After hearing her, those interested in truth should have supported her asking all the questions, but there was no way to know that in advance.
I think it's a shame no one asked basic questions like, how long were you at the party? How long were you down stairs before going up? how long did the attack occur? How long after the attack did you stay at the party? She may not have known but it was still material that should have been on the record. Did you say anything to those downstairs afterwards? Did you run out the door?
There were definitely some oddities exposed that should have been followed up on. She didn't know if she arrived before or after the others (which seems odd). Given the size of the group and her testimony as to how she was attacked, she must have been aware that the boys had gone up stairs and then followed them, which no one asked about. It's seems incredibly odd in that circumstance that no one, including her friend, would have investigated after she didn't return and the music went on full blast. It was odd that she testified both that they turned up the music and that she could hear them bouncing down the stairs through the closed door, there was some limited follow up. It's also odd that she testified that after she left she was thankful they didn't follow here, but that she couldn't remember anything else about who she left with or how. One would think that if this was part of the vivid recall portion of the event, that you'd remember through to where you felt safe. Especially given the distance from home, she'd have to have gotten a ride somehow - it's unlikely she'd forget walking for hours or having to call her parents.
Kavanaugh. I thought the opening monologue was powerful. There really wasn't any way to testify if you're innocent that wouldn't be criticized. You'd look guilty if you were not outraged, but you look belligerent if you are. I think it was smart to call out the Democrats for their blatant playing of politics, and I wish more people would do so.
On his questioning. The special counsel was more aggressive with him and went straight to the questions that needed to be on the record. The Dems again embarrassed themselves on the idea they were looking for the truth, but the reality is they were there to score political points and to try and get a delay. Kavanaugh's worst responses were to the repeated, and I mean repeated again and again, request that he personally do their political dirty work and call for a delay and an investigation. He obviously didn't know where to go other than to his canned response, it was clear he didn't want to say "don't investigate" cause it'd make him look guilty, or "do investigate" cause it would almost certainly give an out to Senators like Manchin, but his response was just stupid. If he was quicker on his feet, he would have mocked them in his responses, "Senator, are you asking me if I would support you political desires to delay my confirmation when I'm sitting in front of you available to answer any questions you might have on this topic? Why no I wouldn't." But even those kind of responses are troubling.
I think Senator Whitehouse ended up looking like a complete tool in his deep dive into Kavanaugh's yearbook, where he literally allowed Kavanaugh to make a fart joke at his expense. It's no surprise the Dem's didn't touch on that after. I'm pretty sure - I like beers - is going to be a permanent meme about Kavanaugh.
I thought Republicans' came down into the fray effectively, with Graham being absolutely devastating. With a failed almost close second when they forced Feinstein to deny leaking the letter (which only she, Ford, Ford's lawyers, and Ford' Congresswoman had). It's interesting to see if Ford's Congresswoman will own up to leaking, cause if she doesn't Diane basically asserted that Ford is responsible for the leak (and thus perjured herself). She must of realized that cause she tried to blame it on Ford's friends - but that doesn't fly as it was the letter that leaked and Ford directly said they didn't have it.
It's pretty clear that goal of getting Mark Judge to testify is that he's admittedly a "bad" person based on his book and the Dem's want to conduct a guilt by association process - big surprise I know. They went out of their way to try and bring in a "fact" that wasn't in his statement - ie that he worked at a specific grocery store so they could point to it as a "need" for him to testify. I find it very interesting that such "fact" was actually referred to in his book - which their staff has clearly scoured in detail. In any event, its a certainty that he lived and worked in the area, it's not convincing to claim you ran into them there as "proof" that makes the account more credible - but wait and see that's how it's going to come up - probably over the weekend, with big headlines.
-
They're public figures. It would be easy enough to find out where they live, although it was still despicable.
The doxxing of Christine Blasey Ford was much worse.
Ford made the decision to become a public figure. How’s your defense of this stack up now?
Thei families are not public figures. In an era when liberals tend to go after republicans to shoot and stab them, helping to fill out the kill list is the bottom of the barrel.
-
Breaking news: Sen. Flake will only vote for Kavanaugh in committee if the Senate agrees to delay the floor vote for a week so the FBI can investigate.
-
Cruz apparently said that Mark Judge would take the fifth if subpoenaed. Which is an interesting assertion since Kavanaugh has there was absolutely nothing untoward going on. What does Cruz know that he's not telling?
-
You could read Cruz's quote if you want to know. He literally said that any counsel would tell Judge to take the fifth. Which of course, since we're talking about someone on the left is proof of guilt (whereas with Lerner it was, for example, proof she was afraid of a witch hunt).
Again, it's no mystery why the Dems want to crucify Jugde, he's publicaly admitted to being a wild partier, he's apparently a recovering alcoholic and substance abuser and not able to hold up under the strain. The way they handled Kavanaugh leaves no doubt they are on a full on mission of destruction without regard to consequence.
-
My added thoughts on the Political Kaibuki Theater:
Because that's what this is. It's political theater. I feel it's part show to increase tribalism and get more votes in November. I feel this way because it's effecting me in this way, and I feel I'm a pretty non-tribal kinda guy. But this stuff has changed my mind on my ballot plan for November.
I too thought Ford was very credible. She doesn't appear to be lying to me. I also agree that the Democrats did not seem terribly interested in fleshing out her story, corroborating any of it, or strengthening or testing her case. They seemed mostly interested in congratulating and praising her. I feel that if they were actually interested in finding the truth they would have asked some real questions. I thought the questions by Mitchell were about 75% there. Part of it was that it's tough to have a line of questioning interrupted every 5 minutes by another 5 minutes of praise. The other part is that there was no clarification on some of the tough questions, like her sudden inability to fly, and if she knew that the Judiciary Committee had offered to come to California.
Beyond credibility, I think the most powerful parts of her testimony is the fact that she identified one of Kavanaugh's known friends; somebody called Squi; as a boyfriend at the time. Kavanaugh says that he never met Ford, or remembers meeting her, yet she was apparently going out with one of his friends.
The weakest part of her story is that she doesn't remember where she was, when it happened, how she got there, or how she got home, despite saying she only had one beer. That's a story without any flesh on it at all. It's nearly impossible to corroborate anything. The weakest part of it all is that none of the people that she says were there back up her story, including her friend. It's 4 people's word against 1. That's nothing.
When it comes to Kavanaugh, I thought he came across as credible as well. I'm flabbergasted by people who believe that his anger was evidence of wrongdoing or lack of temperament. If it was me, I'd be more pissed off.
The strongest part of Kavanaugh's testimony is also the weakest part. He has produced the ONLY, the ONLY written record detailing events that occurred around the time of the alleged party. He's got the calendar. The only problem is that the calendar actually states there was a party with Judge and a PJ and a Squi on the 1st of July. There should have been information as to where this party took place, what it looked like, and it's actual location if it was near the country club. There should have been some questioning on this party. Instead there were questions about "boofing" and "FFFFFFourth of July" and "devil's triangle" and other conspiracy level bs about being a part of a gang rape crew. Sheer crap.
Lindsey Graham was very powerful.
I think there should be some further investigation. If that means the FBI, go at it, despite the fact that I think the FBI can't really do a good investigation here and should not be used this way. I think the best people to do the job would have been the Montgomery County PD, and they could have been contacted by the accuser or by Senate Democrats nearly two months ago. The FBI could have been informed when the process and investigation could have been done quietly, without dragging two families through hell. I'm a bit upset by that. I agree there should be some investigation, but it should have been done when these things first came out. Confidentiality could have been preserved. Privacy could have been preserved.
This is why the US Senate is not the place for criminal investigations. Wow this has been botched. Sorry, I blame the Democrats. They had accusations almost two months ago. Like Graham said, they could have approached and had an additional investigation then. Instead, it came out at the end of the confirmation hearings, which is usually the last step. So now we have a show. I won't forget who made that happen. It's changed the way I will vote this November. So it worked. The show did it's job.
Flake just called for additional investigation. OK. Let's have it. I would like some things cleared up as well. But wow did they do this wrong by not bringing it up two months ago.
-
Cruz apparently said that Mark Judge would take the fifth if subpoenaed. Which is an interesting assertion since Kavanaugh has there was absolutely nothing untoward going on. What does Cruz know that he's not telling?
**** that. They wanted the FBI involved. Now they're involved. Judge doesn't need to talk to the Committee. He can be questioned by the FBI, multiple times, at his home. The committee can read the transcripts and take the FBI's recommendation. ANYTHING more is BS.
-
The FBI isn't involved yet. But the circus goes on.
Though I think the GOP is trying to avoid Judge's testimony because he'll testify that Kavanaugh did engage in heavy drinking at the very least.
-
Though I think the GOP is trying to avoid Judge's testimony because he'll testify that Kavanaugh did engage in heavy drinking at the very least.
He's pretty much already admitted to this.
1 says it happened
4 that were supposedly there say it didn't happen
You're SOL unless you can come up with something better than "he drank too much".
The ONLY piece of evidence that corroborates anything is a calendar entry by Kavanaugh actually entered as evidence to defend himself.
You need to get another witness who says they drove her to the party and from the party. That can identify where the party took place. That matches the description given by Ford and some proximity to the country club she was at. And happened on the 1st of July, the only date that can be corroborated by a written record. All of that doesn't even prove it. It just makes the likelihood that it actually occurred high enough to disqualify as a good choice as a SCOTUS Justice.
-
Though I think the GOP is trying to avoid Judge's testimony because he'll testify that Kavanaugh did engage in heavy drinking at the very least.
He's pretty much already admitted to this.
1 says it happened
4 that were supposedly there say it didn't happen
You're SOL unless you can come up with something better than "he drank too much".
The ONLY piece of evidence that corroborates anything is a calendar entry by Kavanaugh actually entered as evidence to defend himself.
You need to get another witness who says they drove her to the party and from the party. That can identify where the party took place. That matches the description given by Ford and some proximity to the country club she was at. And happened on the 1st of July, the only date that can be corroborated by a written record. All of that doesn't even prove it. It just makes the likelihood that it actually occurred high enough to disqualify as a good choice as a SCOTUS Justice.
Except that 2 that were supposedly there were unaware of the incident and thus had no reason to remember the party.
And the other 2 were actors in the incident, and were supposedly sloshed, which can affect your long-term memory.
So it really comes down to 1 who says it happened and 2 who supposedly were drunk at the time and may not remember, and who have good reason not to tell the truth since they still could be criminally liable.
And while it is most likely there is no longer any physical evidence of the incident, if there are several other credible stories that Kavanaugh did similar things, either before or later, that would provide more weight to Ford's story. People who treat women the way Kavanaugh is alleged to have done usually do so more than once.
-
Except that 2 that were supposedly there were unaware of the incident and thus had no reason to remember the party.
Not quite accurate. Leland Keyser sent an email that said doesn't even know Kavanaugh, and never remembered a party where he was in attendance, which by Ford's own testimony, was only attended by 6 people. PJ Smyth has stated that he had no knowlege of such a party that he attended that included Ford.
So Keyser says that she never even met Kavanaugh. Smyth says he never was at a party with Ford.
And the other 2 were actors in the incident, and were supposedly sloshed, which can affect your long-term memory.
Careful. That "being sloshed can affect your long-term memory" goes both ways. Yes, Judge and Kavanaugh are the suspected perpetrators. They're the last persons whose statements you should find credible, IF you can find anyone else to corroborate the accusations. You got NOBODY. So that's still 4 people who say they were never at a party with both Ford and Kavanaugh at the same time. From the standpoint of the accuser, you still have ZERO corroborating statements from people who were supposedly there. From the standpoint of the accused, if Kavanaugh is innocent, you have 4 people who say they were never at a gathering with both of them in attendance. Yes, two of them are the accused, but their statements still matter if there is nothing else to go on.
And while it is most likely there is no longer any physical evidence of the incident, if there are several other credible stories that Kavanaugh did similar things, either before or later, that would provide more weight to Ford's story. People who treat women the way Kavanaugh is alleged to have done usually do so more than once.
You mean like how he was part of a gang rape crew? Or waved his penis? Have ANY of these been proven? The others can only be shown to be evidence of a pattern of behavior if you can show that one of them did in fact happen. How long do you need to talk to every woman that Kavanaugh has ever been near since 1982? Oh wait, you already have statements from 65 women he went to high school with, and a bunch of women he worked with. Where's the pattern? There are about 10,000+ reporters right now scouring every person who ever went to high school with Kavanaugh, Judge, and Ford. You have a better intel network and investigative team then the KGB had in the State Department.
Stick to the possibilities. Find someone who can corroborate. Find the house. Find that a party took place there on the 1st of July. Infiltrate the dealer. Find the supplier.
-
That "being sloshed can affect your long-term memory" goes both ways.
From what I've heard, alcohol can interfere with short-term memory becoming long-term memory. So while it may make someone forget what happened in the past, it won't create memories. So it doesn't quite cut both ways.
And while it is most likely there is no longer any physical evidence of the incident, if there are several other credible stories that Kavanaugh did similar things, either before or later, that would provide more weight to Ford's story. People who treat women the way Kavanaugh is alleged to have done usually do so more than once.
You mean like how he was part of a gang rape crew? Or waved his penis? Have ANY of these been proven? The others can only be shown to be evidence of a pattern of behavior if you can show that one of them did in fact happen. How long do you need to talk to every woman that Kavanaugh has ever been near since 1982? Oh wait, you already have statements from 65 women he went to high school with, and a bunch of women he worked with. Where's the pattern? There are about 10,000+ reporters right now scouring every person who ever went to high school with Kavanaugh, Judge, and Ford. You have a better intel network and investigative team then the KGB had in the State Department.
I'm not necessarily talking about the accusations that have already been made. I'm talking about any other that may be out there.
And the fact that nothing happened to 65 women doesn't mean there couldn't be a dozen or so out there that something happened to. I mean, how many people did Ted Bundy not murder? ;)
I'm not saying that they will find other accusers. But like the nest in a tree, you don't know if there are eggs in there until you climb and look. Yeah, a lot of reporters are looking, hoping to snag a story. But can you guarantee to me that the FBI will find no new accusations? If not, it's worth looking. Can't hurt if they don't find anything.
After all, the worst-case scenario is that Kavanaugh gets appoint to SCOTUS, and is then put on trial for rape by someone... :o
-
That "being sloshed can affect your long-term memory" goes both ways.
From what I've heard, alcohol can interfere with short-term memory becoming long-term memory. So while it may make someone forget what happened in the past, it won't create memories. So it doesn't quite cut both ways.
From what I'm reading, it can cut both ways. It's pretty weird. Under the influence of alcohol, you can better recall accurately information you have been exposed to only once, but suffer in accurately recalling information you have been exposed to several times. I'm not sure the exact connection between accurate recall of word lists and creating false memories, but I'm not a neuroscientist or psychiatrist.
Thus, regarding memory accuracy as indexed by false memory endorsement, placebo participants’ memory got more accurate with repetition,whilst accuracy for participants in the alcohol group declined.
(PDF) The effects of alcohol on false memories. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296290526_The_effects_of_alcohol_on_false_memories [accessed Sep 28 2018].
I'm not necessarily talking about the accusations that have already been made. I'm talking about any other that may be out there.
Well let's go hunting for completely new accusations by again interviewing every single women Kavanaugh has ever come into contact with in his life. That should only take a week. Instead of actually focusing on the allegations that we have the most information and testimony on, lets find some more!
And the fact that nothing happened to 65 women doesn't mean there couldn't be a dozen or so out there that something happened to.
Why stop at a dozen? There could be literally thousands of women that Kavanaugh has sexually assaulted. Because the fact that nothing happened to 65 women doesn't prove he didn't assault 1000. What planet are we on now? We must be on the planet where if 65 girls from my high school say that I always acted in a gentlemanly way towards them and they never heard of anything otherwise, that your immediate response is "this means nothing!". Oh, you're right in that it doesn't prove anything scientifically or logically. But your "there must be a pattern" theory just got shot in the foot.
I'm not saying that they will find other accusers. But like the nest in a tree, you don't know if there are eggs in there until you climb and look. Yeah, a lot of reporters are looking, hoping to snag a story. But can you guarantee to me that the FBI will find no new accusations? If not, it's worth looking. Can't hurt if they don't find anything.
How many nests are in this tree? 10,000? How many nests have had eggs? We've been through how many? 65? 150? 300? No eggs. So your mode of thinking is to scour this tree and every nest because "there could be an egg somewhere in there". Bigfoot could exist too. Accusations mean nothing. You need corroboration. You need to focus on what you know and what accusations you have, not what you don't know and accusations that COULD be there.
Infiltrate the dealers! Find the Suppliers!
After all, the worst-case scenario is that Kavanaugh gets appoint to SCOTUS, and is then put on trial for rape by someone... :o
No. The worst case scenario is that Kavanaugh is appointed to SCOTUS despite being guilty and then is not put on trial. Stay focused. This is why we're doing this extra investigation.
-
And the fact that nothing happened to 65 women doesn't mean there couldn't be a dozen or so out there that something happened to.
Why stop at a dozen? There could be literally thousands of women that Kavanaugh has sexually assaulted. Because the fact that nothing happened to 65 women doesn't prove he didn't assault 1000. What planet are we on now? We must be on the planet where if 65 girls from my high school say that I always acted in a gentlemanly way towards them and they never heard of anything otherwise, that your immediate response is "this means nothing!". Oh, you're right in that it doesn't prove anything scientifically or logically. But your "there must be a pattern" theory just got shot in the foot.
So these were 65 random women that knew Kavanaugh? Or 65 out of who-knows-how-many that were willing to sign? ;)
No, it doesn't mean "nothing." But your familiar enough with statistics to know that it may mean very little, depending on how the list was gathered.
After all, the worst-case scenario is that Kavanaugh gets appoint to SCOTUS, and is then put on trial for rape by someone... :o
No. The worst case scenario is that Kavanaugh is appointed to SCOTUS despite being guilty and then is not put on trial. Stay focused. This is why we're doing this extra investigation.
"We?" "We?" Who is we?
Are you a Democrat? Because the Democrats have been screaming for this since Ford's accusation came out. But they never had the power to do it, so they don't get the credit.
You're certainly not a Republican. Because Republicans have been blocking any extra investigation since the get-go. The only reason it's happening now is because one Republican on the committee, Jeff Flake, gave an ultimatum. So it can't be the Republicans.
The person responsible is Jeff Flake, and maybe Murkowski from what I've heard. But that's only two people, and I kinda doubt you're one of them. :) So who are "we?"
I'll grant you that your scenario is a bit worse than mine. Just note that it is the scenario that the Republicans have fought hard to make more likely. >:(
-
It's just terrible how all these people are lying about Kavanaugh's drinking habits: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/liz-swisher-yale-classmate-sloppy-drunk-bts-cuomo-vpx.cnn (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/liz-swisher-yale-classmate-sloppy-drunk-bts-cuomo-vpx.cnn)
-
So what happens if, during the "supplemental" investigation, the FBI finds credible evidence of, say, 2 or 3 instances of Kavanaugh passing out from being drunk?
-
Why not just wait until after the election to let the "People" decide ;)
I have been extremely frustrated by the whole event. This has very little to do with finding out about the truth and everything to do with politics. I didn't watch more than several minutes of the questioning but I was not impressed with the rudeness Kavanaugh demonstrated to those questioning him. I recognize that he has a grievance if innocent but I guess I believe that those questioning him deserve a degree of respect. But maybe this is now deemed appropriate behavior.
The delays in reporting the alleged assault whether it was for the legitimate reason of protecting Ford or not is also problematic however once reported it should be fully investigated. These types of behaviors are rarely isolated to a single event so if it is real it should not be that difficult to find a pattern.
I find it sad that we keep coming back to political agenda over right and wrong. I have to wonder what message are we sending our children.
-
So these were 65 random women that knew Kavanaugh? Or 65 out of who-knows-how-many that were willing to sign? ;)
No, it doesn't mean "nothing." But your familiar enough with statistics to know that it may mean very little, depending on how the list was gathered.
That's right. Just because we didn't find Bigfoot behind 65 trees over here, and behind the 50+ trees over there, doesn't prove that Bigfoot could be hiding behind the other 5,000 trees in the forest. So by all means, the FBI should spend it's time looking behind all the other trees in the forest, instead of going to the one tree where someone said they saw Bigfoot, and looking for tracks or Bigfoot turds. We don't need to infiltrate the dealers if we just find the suppliers! By the way, if Bigfoot pees behind a tree, there is roughly a 1 in 3 chance that the tree would have turned bright pink. How many bright pink trees you got?
"We?" "We?" Who is we?
We the American people. In whom ultimate sovereignty lies. Hence the Senate and FBI and President answers to "us". "We" elect the Senate and President. It's a mode of thinking that's anti-tribal, and despite everything that has occurred lately, I guess I still think that way. I guess some other people don't.
Are you a Democrat? Because the Democrats have been screaming for this since Ford's accusation came out. But they never had the power to do it, so they don't get the credit.
That's funny. Did they bring it up when they found out about it through the original letter to Sen Feinstein? Back when they were going through the background checks and investigatory period of the confirmation? Or did they wait until after the confirmation hearings were complete to leak it? When the investigatory period was over and it was time to vote?
I'll grant you that your scenario is a bit worse than mine. Just note that it is the scenario that the Republicans have fought hard to make more likely. >:(
I think that the Senate Republicans are rightly upset that the Senate Democrats didn't ask for water after supper, or after brushing their teeth, and instead want water at 9pm, when it's bedtime. The suspicion is that the Senate Democrats are just stalling because they don't want to go to bed. If they were thirsty, they could have and should have asked for water at 8. Now we're supposedly worried about the risk of dehydration during the night, but that didn't seem to be a factor back at 8. You want water? Ask for it at 8pm when you were supposedly thirsty and it was time for water. But mom is desperately afraid you're going to dehydrate, so here's your water. Be happy.
I hope the FBI is a lot more focused then y'all. Infiltrate the dealer. Find the supplier.
-
It's just terrible how all these people are lying about Kavanaugh's drinking habits: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/liz-swisher-yale-classmate-sloppy-drunk-bts-cuomo-vpx.cnn (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/liz-swisher-yale-classmate-sloppy-drunk-bts-cuomo-vpx.cnn)
Red Herring. Quit getting distracted by shiny objects on CNN. Unless you're trying to get him on perjury, which I agree would be disqualifying. But the guy already admitted to drinking to excess.
I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers.
yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers,
MITCHELL: When you talked to Fox News the other night, you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you?
KAVANAUGH: Sure.
So we've established that he admitted to drinking too much. Where is the perjury? Not only is this a Red Herring, but it's a Strawman. Who said he never drank too much?
-
So what happens if, during the "supplemental" investigation, the FBI finds credible evidence of, say, 2 or 3 instances of Kavanaugh passing out from being drunk?
I have no clue. Why are you going down this road? Passing out from being drunk in high school and college doesn't seem to be disqualifying. Perjury is, but this is going to be tough. He said he didn't pass out, but that he went to sleep. Going to sleep is basically the same as passing out. You're going to have to clarify terms with him, like they did with the definition of sexual behavior, if you want to get him on perjury. Because at this point he seems to be conflating "passing out" with "blacking out".
-
After all, the worst-case scenario is that Kavanaugh gets appoint to SCOTUS, and is then put on trial for rape by someone... :o
No. The worst case scenario is that Kavanaugh is appointed to SCOTUS despite being guilty and then is not put on trial. Stay focused. This is why we're doing this extra investigation.
In which case, it probably is a story that happened much more openly in the past, only those Justices didn't have to worry about losing their seats. You do realize slavery was legal for the first 80-ish years of the Court's existence?
It also isn't like there is no precedent for Judges being put on trial in the past, or that he's going to sit the Supreme Court for his own appeal.
-
But the guy already admitted to drinking to excess.
He also claimed that he never passed out as a result of his drinking... under oath... and remember, this isn't a court of law - it is politics now, and if he is perceived by enough people to have lied under oath, regardless of his angry weasel words, that will be a problem for him.
-
But the guy already admitted to drinking to excess.
He also claimed that he never passed out as a result of his drinking... under oath... and remember, this isn't a court of law - it is politics now, and if he is perceived by enough people to have lied under oath, regardless of his angry weasel words, that will be a problem for him.
Cool. At least we've dropped the pretense of justice. The idea is for CNN to convince enough people that he committed perjury by saying really loud that he committed perjury. This then will excuse elected officials of refusing to confirm him because everybody who watches CNN is convinced that he's committed perjury.
I mean, we should have done this with President Obama when everybody who watched Fox News or watched Alex Jones on Facebook thought that he wasn't an American citizen. Straight to impeachment. Why? Well, enough people perceive that he's not an American citizen.
Let's talk about the fake news problem and how we got to the point that nobody believes anything anymore. Tomorrow, CNN could have rock solid evidence that President Trump fellated Puter in the Lincoln Bedroom, and I'll be wondering if they're just trying to get me to perceive that this happened. So I have a Russian kolbasa loving POTUS, and I can't get rid of him, because the media isn't trusted.
By all means; forget about the dealers, forget about the supplier.
-
My added thoughts on the Political Kaibuki Theater:
Because that's what this is. It's political theater. I feel it's part show to increase tribalism and get more votes in November. I feel this way because it's effecting me in this way, and I feel I'm a pretty non-tribal kinda guy. But this stuff has changed my mind on my ballot plan for November.
I too thought Ford was very credible. She doesn't appear to be lying to me. I also agree that the Democrats did not seem terribly interested in fleshing out her story, corroborating any of it, or strengthening or testing her case. They seemed mostly interested in congratulating and praising her. I feel that if they were actually interested in finding the truth they would have asked some real questions. I thought the questions by Mitchell were about 75% there. Part of it was that it's tough to have a line of questioning interrupted every 5 minutes by another 5 minutes of praise. The other part is that there was no clarification on some of the tough questions, like her sudden inability to fly, and if she knew that the Judiciary Committee had offered to come to California.
...
This is why the US Senate is not the place for criminal investigations. Wow this has been botched. Sorry, I blame the Democrats. They had accusations almost two months ago. Like Graham said, they could have approached and had an additional investigation then. Instead, it came out at the end of the confirmation hearings, which is usually the last step. So now we have a show. I won't forget who made that happen. It's changed the way I will vote this November. So it worked. The show did it's job.
Flake just called for additional investigation. OK. Let's have it. I would like some things cleared up as well. But wow did they do this wrong by not bringing it up two months ago.
Huh, almost exactly to this playboook outline, created before the allegations surfaced:
We're certainly too close to the next congressional elections. I think it's only fair to give people the chance to elect a new Senate before a new supreme court justice is appointed.
Moot point, regardless of what happens with the open SCotUS seat, the odds are pretty good that the Republicans retain control of the Senate in 2019. The Senate Electoral map for this cycle is extremely hostile towards the Dems(as something like half of the Democratic Senators are up for election this year).
All the Democrats achieve by throwing up roadblocks in the Senate in regards to that SCotUS seat is increasing the risk that more Republicans show up to vote in November than might have otherwise. Which in turn has the knock-on effect of potentially giving the Republicans both more Senate seats than they'd get otherwise, and thanks to a stronger Republican turnout, it'll probably help defend a few House seats as well.
So I guess this is going to be an odd political standoff. Both parties have an equal number of compelling reasons to both delay, and accelerate the nomination process for Kennedy's replacement. A lot of it comes down to the risk/reward calculus the DNC makes and how disconnected from reality they are.
My expectation is their "Reality on the ground" however is going to force most Dems to support pushing it back to next year because Anti-Trump will eat them alive otherwise.
The more decisive part will be what game the GOP decides to play with it, as they can "go nuclear" and just take care of it. If they're feeling plucky, and play it smart, they'll let the Democrats delay it into next year and make it a "Get out the Vote" issue for Republicans. Anti-Trump was going to vote regardless, so SCotUS doesn't matter for them.
And Flake played wildcard, in that he isn't running again and is essentially lame-duck even before the election. He's now likely delayed the decision until after the November election. Which now makes the 2018 mid-term elections about SCotUS, and that sure did a good job of motivating conservatives to turn out in 2016, we shall see if 2018 does the same thing. They may not like Trump, but at least in this case, they're not actually voting for Trump, they're voting for their Congress critters.
-
I know it's awkward for you to contemplate, Grant, but these women are real people from his past, who are directly contradicting Kavanaugh's sworn statements - people talking from personal experience, what they personally observed. They are also people who do not have an obvious personal stake in criticizing the nominee - certainly nothing to offset the public vitriol that is guaranteed to be sent their way.
If it makes you feel better equating them with Alex Jones, more power to you. But if (and it is still a big if) the FBI finds evidence that strongly puts into question Kavanaugh's testimony, the general population might just question whether somebody who seems to have been self-servingly dishonest while testifying under oath should be trusted to be one of the country's highest judges...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZdaVTJ_cHg
“The next person that refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything,” Biden said. “FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion. Period.”
-
The thing I'm now waiting to see is how the political calculus works out for the Republicans at this point, they pulled the "let the Democrats drag out the process" part off flawlessly. Now they have to decide if Kavanaugh is a boat anchor they need to dump quickly, or if it doesn't matter much, and really, they can afford to wait to see what investigators uncover for now.
They just have to make sure that while they emphasize the importance of Conservative voters supporting them so they can pick the next SCotUS Justice, they have to be careful about not making the election about Kavanaugh specifically.
Something which the Democrats and their boosters are very likely to do, and likely to do at their own peril. I'm currently giving about 70/30 odds that Kavanaugh is going to withdraw his own nomination within the next 3 to 4 weeks, potentially in lieu of a threat to have it come to a vote and let the Senate kill it. At which point their reason to "get out and vote" disappears.
Meanwhile for the Republicans and their voters, Kavanaugh or no Kavanaugh, keeping control of the nomination and selection process is very important to them.
-
From the standpoint of making a political calculation, if he were sacrificed it would probably work out better for Republicans. Of course Trump should name someone even more conservative and I believe there is a woman judge who would fit the bill, so Republicans win there anyway. And then having sacrificed a good man, if he is telling the truth and is innocent, he can become a martyr. Looking at the testimony of both of them I have no way of telling who is lying and who is honest. There isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion so are we supposed to make a judgment based on the acting ability of whichever one of them is lying? That didn't work out well in Salem. Now I don't think it's right to sacrifice him if he's innocent but it might get Republicans the most votes in the end though I hope they'll still do well if he's confirmed too.
-
I know it's awkward for you to contemplate, Grant, but these women are real people from his past, who are directly contradicting Kavanaugh's sworn statements - people talking from personal experience, what they personally observed. They are also people who do not have an obvious personal stake in criticizing the nominee - certainly nothing to offset the public vitriol that is guaranteed to be sent their way.
If it makes you feel better equating them with Alex Jones, more power to you. But if (and it is still a big if) the FBI finds evidence that strongly puts into question Kavanaugh's testimony, the general population might just question whether somebody who seems to have been self-servingly dishonest while testifying under oath should be trusted to be one of the country's highest judges...
I know rhetoric is not fundamental, Donald, but I wasn't equating the women to Alex Jones. But now that you mention it, I could, based off inference from my previous post, make an argument from analogy between CNN and Alex Jones. Note that you cannot infer that I am comparing the before mentioned women to Alex Jones.
So: CNN is like Alex Jones because both of them present false information, that they believe may in fact be true.... because their politics is informing their factual understanding.
This is indeed an argument from analogy. It is specifically a figurative analogy. A metaphor. The above broken down sentence is in fact a simile.
This is not in fact equivocation. Equivocation is more in the realm of formal logic rather than rhetoric. So you're not trying to prove false equivalence. You need to prove false analogy.
To prove false equivalence, you need only show that whatever two things are being compared, and by what they are being compared, are in fact not equal. Wheras proving false analogy is a little bit stickier, because you have to basically show that the two things being compared are more dissimilar than similar. This sounds like it should be easy when it comes to CNN and Alex Jones. But remember, the comparison is being made in that they both present false information. Your best bet to prove false analogy would be to focus on magnitude. You could argue that CNN only spreads a little falsehood, while Alex Jones spreads a great deal. I'll leave that to you. My only point is that responsible people don't attempt to manipulate public perception through falsehoods. As far as I know, Chris Cuomo, Liz Swisher, and great gobs of the populace, believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself when it comes to his comments on his drinking habits. I've already shown why they're wrong.
But ignore that. Don't actually engage the argument. Let's see how many Red Herrings and Strawmen we create. First there was the strawman that Kavanaugh said he didn't drink too excess. Then there was the strawman that I was equating Alex Jones to Liz Swisher. The second is a Red Herring because it does not deal with the the central question "did Kavanaugh perjure himself" and the claim I put forward that he did not. The first is a Red Herring because Kavanaugh will or will not be confirmed based upon any evidence the FBI finds regarding his statements concerning Dr. Ford's accusations, not his drinking habits or further allegations or accusations.
Interrogate the healers, fine the repliers.....right?
-
I believe that there should be some real skepticism of a single accusation of this sort; that being said, the actions since this issue emerged have shown Ford to be far more credible than Kavanaugh. Republicans accuse Democrats of politics (there's politics on both sides, of course) because their position is unsupportable on the facts.
Democrats did not use this sort of tactic against Gorsuch (who arguably was being appointed to a stolen Supreme Court seat). Ford even made her contact with her Representative before Kavanaugh was nominated with the full understanding that an equally extreme conservative Republican would be appointed instead - but it would be an extreme conservative Republican who had not committed sexual assault. Ford took a lie detector test with an independent retired FBI investigator that validated her assertion that she is certain that he committed this crime.
Ford answered every question asked of her; look at this graphic of just how many questions Kavanaugh refused to answer while testifying (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart)).
Republicans fought an FBI investigation; when they heard of additional accusations they tried to accelerate the approval (with no explanation as to why 71 days was a magical time; this next appointee will probably be serving until the year 2053 and yet there was a rush in days
Even now, there are reports that the White House is setting limits on what the FBI can investigate. I believe that there actually should be limits - but can you identify any situation in which Republicans would have trusted the Clinton or Obama Administrations to be the ones setting limits on what the FBI could investigate? Why does the Trump Administration get special privileges?
And I think that refusing to investigate Mark Judge, who is an eye witness named by the accuser (who, I will remind you, passed a lie detector test), is undefendable.
Finally, Kavanaugh himself has ruled as a judge that employers can use lie detector tests in the hiring process (which is one of a vast range of things that cause many liberals to be concerned with him). If he truly believes that is valid for situations where employees are being hired for jobs with vastly less power than Supreme Court Justice, and jobs without a lifetime hiring guarantee, should he be willing to take a lie detector test himself?
-
Gratitude to Grant and Greg for the level, honesty, and depth of the last two posts.
Clearly our country needs procedural law for dealing with last minute sex crime accusations against political appointees, since without such, there’s just too much at stake for any controversial candidate (innocent or not) to not be so accused in the future.
Since Greg openly acknowledges that reasonable people could and should view with suspicion the procedure by which these accusations were introduced, I feel obligated to examine Greg’s contention that Ford’s accusating testimony was nonetheless credible and convincing.
This puts me out, but now that at least one of Ford’s proponents appears to be engaging this discussion in good faith, I have to take it seriously.
-
the actions since this issue emerged have shown Ford to be far more credible than Kavanaugh.
I'm not sure which actions you are putting forward as evidence to support this claim. Actions you have listed:
1. Democrats did not do this to Gorsuch - nothing to do with Ford's credibility
2. Ford even made her contact with her Representative before Kavanaugh was nominated - Narrator: Could lend credibility, if it were completely true. She contacted Eschoo after Kavanaugh was announced as a possible nominee. She even noted that this was her motivation. She wanted to come forward as part of her civic duty after finding out he was a possible nominee. If it is notable that she contacted Eschoo before Kavanaugh was picked, it's notable that she didn't contact Eschoo until his name was floated as a possible nominee.
3. Ford answered every question asked of her, Kavanaugh did not . Narrator: This would support credibility, but after looking over the Vox article, I havn't seen one example where he did not answer a question. Your source is questionable in it's bias and the story has not been repeated by anyone save for The Cut.
4. Republicans fought an FBI investigation; when they heard of additional accusations they tried to accelerate the approval Narrator: Has nothing to do with Ford's credibility
It's interesting to note that Democrats also did not want an FBI investigation when it was time to have an FBI investigation. They could have requested one much earlier. Instead they waited until after the hearings were over to leak the accusations. Why?
5. Even now, there are reports that the White House is setting limits on what the FBI can investigate. Narrator: doesn't go to Ford's credibility
This has also been denied by the Whitehouse.
6. refusing to investigate Mark Judge, who is an eye witness named by the accuser (who, I will remind you, passed a lie detector test), is undefendable. Narrator: Has nothing to do with Ford's credibility
The FBI will certainly try. But unfortunately the FBI can't force anyone to cooperate. Because this is not a criminal investigation, they do not have power of subpoena. The Senate can. This would have been something important for the Dems to bring up when they were negotiating with Flake. I'd like to see Judge subpoenaed, but chances are he won't be.
7. Ford took a lie detector test with an independent retired FBI investigator that validated her assertion that she is certain that he committed this crime. Narrator: Sorry, I forgot this one. This certainly lends credibility. One point. Score now 1 for 7.
I think this is important, but it's also important to note that the polygraph test was only taken on two simple questions asking about a statement that was written before hand. There is no independent confirmation. I don't know if the actual polygraph has been released to the FBI yet. Nevertheless, this does lend Ford credibility.
8. Kavanaugh himself has ruled as a judge that employers can use lie detector tests in the hiring process Narrator: The fact that Kavanaugh has not taken a polygraph certainly hurts his credibility when Ford has. You could note though that Kavanaugh is correct that they are not admissible in criminal proceedings due to fallibility, and that so far nobody has asked him to do one except the Democrats. Also remember to note that Ford's test has not been independently verified and consisted of only two questions regarding the validity of her statement. Also note that Vox, which I have earlier accused of liberal bias, so they have no reason to lie when it comes to articles of theirs that do not support Ford, has published two articles that talk about the problems of polygraph tests https://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/5999119/polygraphs-lie-detectors-do-they-work https://www.vox.com/2015/10/18/9560391/polygraphs-wrong-police
I'd also like to note that the statement seems to be false. I've read through Sack v Department of Defense, and it has nothing to do with saying that employers can use polygraphs. The case notes that law enforcement does indeed use polygraph for employment and security purposes. But the case is about weather Sack could, under the FOIA, be given documents that show problems with polygraph programs used by law enforcement, homeland security, and the DoD. That's what he ruled on, not whether employers could use polygraphs or not. Maybe you guys are referring to some other case he opined on. Otherwise it's bs. In other words, somebody is either lying or stupid. Take your pick. I usually go with stupid because it doesn't require fathoming intent.
Let's talk about "credibility" for a moment. It's a new buzzword. Credibility is the subjective impression of an individuals truthfulness in a statement, based usually on affect. It's been shown to be remarkably difficult to be accurate. Studies show that experts are no better than laypeople when it comes to detecting lies. Because of this, finding people credible or non-credible based simply on their affect tell more about the judge then the judged. It pretty much signals bias. Whomever you think is more credible is basically the person you should trust least when it comes to weighing the truth. This is why criminal cases are decided on evidence and corroboration, rather than affect.
Let's talk about the differences in the questioning of Ford and Kavanaugh. Ford's questioning by Mitchell, which was very gentle, was inter spaced with praise and neck rubs by Democratic Senators, who seem to have already made up their minds about the allegations, because they asked no questions themselves that went to corroborate and test Ford's allegations. Kavanaugh on the other hand was both questioned by Mitchell and Democratic Senators. I liked the questioning on the conspiracy theories surrounding devil's triangle and alumnus the best. The Democratic Senators were not exactly gentle. That's fine, but it's important to note the difference in the tone and substance of the questioning.
-
I find it ridiculous that anyone (here, at least) would refer to polygraph tests as being evidence of anything. Their credibility is laughable.
-
I find it ridiculous that anyone (here, at least) would refer to polygraph tests as being evidence of anything. Their credibility is laughable.
From what I can gather, they are from 70% to 90% accurate. That's not insignificant. Even on the lower end, such a result would demand follow up investigation.
But it all depends on how the test is administered. As I've noted before, it's problematic that Ford's actual test only had two questions. Is anything in your statement false? Did you make anything up? The reason it's problematic is because I don't see a baseline question being asked. Or several baseline questions. I'm not a polygrapher, but I'm pretty sure you need a control question, preferrably several, in order to determine if follow on questions show a physiological change.
I'd like to see Kavanaugh and Ford both be submitted to FBI background polygraph tests. They're not good enough for criminal trial, but they are a good place to start.
-
I don't know much about lie detector tests but apparently Ford's consisted of only two questions and neither question had the name Brett Kavanaugh in it. It was also done while she was in a very emotional state after a death in the family and she says she was crying. I can't imagine how anyone can think that any result from such a lie detector test is worth much, or even really worth anything. Two questions? Don't you need more than that just to establish a baseline or something?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/27/christine-blasey-ford-doesnt-remember-who-paid-for-polygraph-test.html
Speaking on Wednesday with Shannon Bream on "Fox News @ Night," Hanafin said that when he administered the polygraph exam, it consisted of just two questions: "Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"
-----------------------------------------------------
As for Kavanaugh taking a lie detector test because he ruled company's should be able to give them to employees, I can see the logic of that but on the other hand what he believes about lie detectors has no real relevance to their effectiveness and accuracy. That goes for everything else too. Flat Earth. Religion. Heliocentric solar system. Witchcraft. Whether one person or the other is lying about a sexual assault. The strength with which we believe something one way or the other, the ability or inability to persuade by those who want to convince us one way or the other, and the number of people who believe with us has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's actually true.
Edited: Dang, was working on my post while Grant made his. For over 20 minutes? Yes, got interrupted. Anyway, I'll just leave it as is. Great minds think alike.
-
From what I can gather, they are from 70% to 90% accurate. That's not insignificant. Even on the lower end, such a result would demand follow up investigation.
I dunno. I've read things from experts that basically say they're bunk science. It's not that they cannot yield good information, it's that assuming that their result *is* good information is faulty. They may be a good way to extract from someone a good direction to investigate next, but I would never feel comfortable with a person's sole criterion being used for or against them as coming from a polygraph. If your list suggests that the polygraph counts as a 1/7 in points supporting Ford's story, I would count it as a solid 0/7. Btw I don't say this because I don't believe her, but just on principle that polygraphs should probably be discontinued altogether in law enforcement. I think I remember the inventor of them even saying they're useless.
-
I find it ridiculous that anyone (here, at least) would refer to polygraph tests as being evidence of anything. Their credibility is laughable.
From what I can gather, they are from 70% to 90% accurate. That's not insignificant. Even on the lower end, such a result would demand follow up investigation.
But it all depends on how the test is administered. As I've noted before, it's problematic that Ford's actual test only had two questions. Is anything in your statement false? Did you make anything up? The reason it's problematic is because I don't see a baseline question being asked. Or several baseline questions. I'm not a polygrapher, but I'm pretty sure you need a control question, preferrably several, in order to determine if follow on questions show a physiological change.
I'd like to see Kavanaugh and Ford both be submitted to FBI background polygraph tests. They're not good enough for criminal trial, but they are a good place to start.
No, they’re not. Vox lays it out: (http://Vox lays it out:)
...polygraph test can sometimes be correct, and sometimes be wrong.
Polygraphs are, as Vox says, pseudoscience. People routinely lie their way through them and people telling the truth are routinely and incorrectly identified as lying. The failure to detect lies and false positives are so common that polygraphs are essentially useless.
A good place to start would be with the witnesses Ford says will corroborate her story - they don’t. Another good place to start is noticing that details of the story change during questioning. These kinds of things are vastly more reliable in identifying liars.
-
A good place to start would be with the witnesses Ford says will corroborate her story - they don’t. Another good place to start is noticing that details of the story change during questioning. These kinds of things are vastly more reliable in identifying liars.
Kavanaugh has made claims about the witnesses that are false. He asserted that several of them refuted her statement, whereas their comments were that they were unaware of what was going on in a room upstairs. Some of those witnesses have publicly rejected the interpretation that Kavanaugh put on their comments.
In contrast, your assertion is that there are witnesses that Ford said would corroborate her story. Who is that? She said to call Mark Judge not because he would corroborate her story, she doesn't know what he would say, but she claims he was a witness.
This is what the Republicans fought.
As for your scorekeeping, most of those articles were irrefutable refutations of Republican talking points. To count how many of them didn't speak to Ford's credibility is wrong because they were not intended for that purpose; they were intended to address the frequent, false assertions that Republicans are presenting.
-
apa on polygraph (http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx)
The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.
Which has to make you wonder why they are routinely used for federal employees (https://federalnewsradio.com/explainers/2018/08/to-tell-the-truth-how-federal-agencies-use-polygraphs-in-hiring-and-screening/), and growing.
“The general consensus seems to be that [it’s] an effective scare tactic,” Bigley said. “It gets people to cough up details about their lives that they wouldn’t otherwise do.”
This certainly wouldn't be the case with a self-clearance test as the one administered to Ford, as it has been described.
-
Kavanaugh has made claims about the witnesses that are false. He asserted that several of them refuted her statement, whereas their comments were that they were unaware of what was going on in a room upstairs. Some of those witnesses have publicly rejected the interpretation that Kavanaugh put on their comments.
Actually, they have said they don't remember the party, not that they were unaware of what was happening upstairs, unless these are different witnesses from the ones listed here in an overview of potential witnesses that the FBI may speak with.
Initially, it appears, the bureau will talk to people who could shed light on Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a house party when they were teenagers. This is expected to include Mark Judge, whom Ford alleges was in the room at the time, and two other people Ford said were at the party, Patrick J. Smyth and Leland Keyser, sources familiar with the matter tell CNN. Judge has already said that he had no memory of any alleged incident involving Ford and Kavanaugh, and Smyth and Keyser have said they don't remember the party. However, Keyser, a friend of Ford's, does not refute the allegation and has said she believes the account, her lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove," Mitchell wrote. "But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.
cnn article (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/white-house-kavanaugh-confirmation-postponement/index.html)
True, failing to corroborate isn't the same as refuting, but it is pretty much the same as not having a "witness" at all when they said they weren't there to witness anything (by their own words).
-
On polygraph tests: The results are only as valid as the person taking the test believes the polygraph is able to detect their lies.
It's an interesting study for psychology types, it's considered a decent baseline to work from because most people are unaware they can be defeated, and thus are likely to go in believing they'll get caught if they lie.
Basically failing a polygraph is bad news for those trying to prove their case. Passing a polygraph test however, does not, in and of itself, prove anything.
-
Kavanaugh has made claims about the witnesses that are false. He asserted that several of them refuted her statement, whereas their comments were that they were unaware of what was going on in a room upstairs. Some of those witnesses have publicly rejected the interpretation that Kavanaugh put on their comments.
I don't believe that any of them stated that they were unaware of what was going on upstairs.
Judge states that he "has no memory of the alleged incident", "never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in such a way", and "do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford".
It's a pretty short statement and it's true that it's not a flat denial. But it generally functions in the same way. "having no memory" and "do not recall" are pretty lawyerly terms with some wiggle room. On the other hand, if something never happened, then you wouldn't have any memory of it.
PJ Smyth has stated that he has no knowledge of the party in question. Not just that he didn't know what was going on upstairs. He says he has no knowledge of a party in question. I take this to mean no party where Ford was there with Ingram and Kavanaugh. That's a refutation of the underlying premise of Ford's testimony; that there was such a party. If the party did not take place, the sexual assault could not have taken place.
Leland Keyser has stated she never met Kavanaugh. No "I do not recall". She flat out states she never knew him. She further states that she doesn't remember any such gathering, with or without Ford. This again refutes the idea that there was such a party. In her lawyer's statement, it is pointed out that she cannot corroborate anything in Ford's story.
The tricky part is in differentiating between what corroborates and what refutes. Three people who were supposedly at the gathering say that they do not recall such a gathering. It's a mouse fart between "I don't remember such a thing happening" and "no such thing happened". What is clear is that nothing in Ford's story has been corroborated.
Kavanaugh on the other hand has, I believe, strongly denied any such actions. He says that he never remembers meeting her. The statements by the witnesses all corroborate his statement that there was no such party.
In contrast, your assertion is that there are witnesses that Ford said would corroborate her story. Who is that? She said to call Mark Judge not because he would corroborate her story, she doesn't know what he would say, but she claims he was a witness.
I'm unsure what this is referring to. I believe that FBI investigators and Ford and her lawyers and the Democrats and every single reporter in DC should attempt to figure out who drove Ford to the alleged gathering, who drove her home, and that the FBI should clarify all the statements from Judge, Keyser, and Smythe. Squi should be interviewed as well. Ford needs something to corroborate some part of her story. If they can corroborate the fact that there was a party, it throws out the statements by Keyser, Smythe, Judge, and Kavanaugh. Infiltrate the dealers, find the supplier. I been saying that since Friday.
This is what the Republicans fought.
This is becoming incoherent. I don't know what this is in reference to.
As for your scorekeeping, most of those articles were irrefutable refutations of Republican talking points.
I would have no idea. I don't get the Republican talking points memo. Do they even have one? I don't recall ever even bringing up Republican talking points.
they were intended to address the frequent, false assertions that Republicans are presenting.
It would be nice to know which assertions you are referring to and which Republicans are presenting them. Anyways, for me, it's off topic. My focus is:
1. FBI investiation
2. Who they need to interview
3. What needs to be clarified
4. What will help strengthen Ford's statement
5. What are are the limits of the investigation, what should they be, and why.
6. What happens if the FBI investigation finds nothing. Are the Democrats going to drop this?
7. What happens if the FBI finds something that corroborates Ford's story. Will the Republicans withdraw the nomination? Will Flake and Murkowski and Rubio, etc, withdraw support?
-
It's a mouse fart between "I don't remember such a thing happening" and "no such thing happened".
But it is also a vole's fart between "I don't remember such a thing happening" and "Oh, I had forgotten about that thing."
So while it does not corroborate Ford's story, it is too much to say that it refutes it, and also too much to say that it corroborates Kavanaugh's assertion.
-
Or, my friends and I got blackout drunk occasionally at that age. :P
-
I was disappointed by how Kavanaugh defended himself. I understand the frustration and anger however expected more from a guy in his position and experience. Personally I thought he should have responded in a manner similar to Ford's, clear, concise and controlled. Even if is a conspiracy, a judge should know better then to blame a conspiracy. (If a conspiracy is proven is it still a conspiracy?)
I don't think Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or a misogynist. He may have been as a teen but I suspect he learned better or we would have more current allegations. That said if this was a job interview, his allusion towards a conspiracy would have disqualified him in my eyes. I wouldn't hire him.
-
6. What happens if the FBI investigation finds nothing. Are the Democrats going to drop this?
7. What happens if the FBI finds something that corroborates Ford's story. Will the Republicans withdraw the nomination?
I think this YouGov poll (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/09/29/deep-polarization-reactions-ford-kavanaugh-hearing) pretty well tells what will happen.
It is hard to believe that Democrats and Republicans were watching the same hearings. 73% of Democrats thought Ford was telling the truth, compared to only 14% of Republicans. 74% of Republicans thought Kavanaugh was telling the truth compared to only 11% of Democrats. Independents were in between, with slightly more believing Ford (33%) than Kavanaugh (32%) and higher percentages not sure about either.
Both sides are pretty well entrenched in their views, so for the most part, I doubt either side will budge. :(
-
And, as FiveThirtyEight points out, we're not good at all at knowing who is lying. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-humans-are-bad-at-spotting-lies/)
-
I don't think Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or a misogynist. He may have been as a teen but I suspect he learned better or we would have more current allegations. That said if this was a job interview, his allusion towards a conspiracy would have disqualified him in my eyes. I wouldn't hire him.
So what about Mrs. "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and 20ish years later? :P
-
But it is also a vole's fart between "I don't remember such a thing happening" and "Oh, I had forgotten about that thing."
So while it does not corroborate Ford's story, it is too much to say that it refutes it, and also too much to say that it corroborates Kavanaugh's assertion.
I'd say it's the other way around. The only way we have of knowing anything of what our past consisted of is memory, other than physical evidence like diaries and pictures and video. So to say "I didn't do that" is synonymous with "I don't remember doing that", from a personal point of view.
Mr. Grant, did you score four touchdowns against Andrew Johnson High School in the city championship game of 1966?
I don't recall that. Personally, I don't remember ever playing football in high school, much less scoring a single touchdown.
Of course, it all depends on what kind of event you're talking about and how long ago it was.
Mr Grant, did you marry Jennifer Connelly in 1992?
No, I think I would remember that.
Mr Grant, did you run around naked at a High School party with three of your friends after playing Presidents and *censored*?
I don't recall that. I suppose it's possible, but I think I would remember that. I'd call it highly unlikely.
Now the lawyers don't want you to say any of that *censored*. They want you to keep is simple. "I don't recall that". They're trying to save you from yourself, because memory does play tricks on you. Nevertheless, when I say "I don't recall that", I mean to say that I don't think that happened. I am in fact pretty certain.
Could it have happened? There is a possibility. But you're not getting any help from me. "I don't recall" functions the same as "I didn't do it". And when I say "I don't recall", I'm saying "I'm pretty certain".
"I don't recall" can mean lots of things. But from the standpoint of showing that something happened, "I don't recall" is a torpedo.
In any case, even when I adamantly believe that something did not happen, it's only because I don't remember doing that. I don't remember making 4 touchdowns because I didn't. I suppose you could get 4 witnesses who say that I did, and maybe I'd doubt my sanity.
-
Wayward that wasn't even worth reading. FiveThirtyEight usually does better.
In any event, being not good at detecting lies is precisely why we focus on evidence. There is none. Even Ford's testimony didn't add any relevant details. How long was she at the party? How many floors in the house? Were the bathroom and the bedroom at the top of a stairway that fed into the party room, or were there other rooms involved? Did the boys go upstairs before you? Was anyone else at the party drunk?
I know you in particular love speculation about Kavanaugh's other acts. Did you take a look at Ford's yearbook (also apparently available) that showed her own school also actively participated in a culture of getting wasted? Would it have any impact, if Ms. Ford herself routinely was drunk to the point of passing out?
No one asked her if she has any memory gaps.
After her performance it's pretty clear to me why she hasn't been giving interviews, she'd never hold up (and I don't think that has anything to do with this situation).
We dodged all the last several questions because we rightly have rape shield laws that prevent using a victim's past behavior to cast down on their accusations. However, in a situation like this, I'm not sure the balance of equities makes that legitimate. We're talking about judging credibility based on dredging up 35 year gossip about one person, while the other gets to pretend to be a saint.
-
If Ford made this whole thing up either on purpose or through false memories, it seems like it would look exactly the way it does now.
If Kavanaugh is lying, it seems like some things would be different. Ford would know how she got there and how she got home. Somebody else would remember such a party. There would be a witness who would have said something corroborating by now.
If it's a false memory it also makes sense why it's hard to say exactly where or when or who was there with any accuracy. If Ford's shrink played a role in fostering this false memory it makes sense that she was unable to fill in the details. Also, if Ford is the one making all this up with malice aforethought, she can't fill in the details herself because then they might be conclusively refuted such as with the calendar, which it looks like took a lot of people by surprise.
Having said all that, Ford could still be telling the truth and Kavanaugh could be lying. No way to really tell. Maybe someday soon brain scans might be able to do it.
I take back what I said about sacrificing Kavanagh as a martyr being politically advantageous. That's probably not a good idea if there isn't any more proof than what we've seen so far, which is essentially no proof at all.
-
I was disappointed by how Kavanaugh defended himself. I understand the frustration and anger however expected more from a guy in his position and experience. Personally I thought he should have responded in a manner similar to Ford's, clear, concise and controlled. Even if is a conspiracy, a judge should know better then to blame a conspiracy. (If a conspiracy is proven is it still a conspiracy?)
I don't think Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or a misogynist. He may have been as a teen but I suspect he learned better or we would have more current allegations. That said if this was a job interview, his allusion towards a conspiracy would have disqualified him in my eyes. I wouldn't hire him.
OK. Glad we're moving beyond sexual assault allegations. Now he's disqualified because he's Alex Jones in disguise.
Interviewer 1: Welcome to your job interview Mr. Robinson.
Robinson: Thank you.
Interviewer 2: *censored* this guy, I will not accept him in the #3 position. I will do anything I can to make sure he is not hired.
Interviewer 1: Now, Mr. Robinson, you've had a great deal of experience in the #6 position in your job in Kansas City.
Robinson: Yes
Interviewer 2: Screw that, this guy laces up his right shoes first!
Robinson: Huh?
Interviewer 1: I don't see what that has to do with his ability to work in the #3 position.
Interviewer 2: He tried to rape a teenage girl!
Interviewer 1: What?!
Robinson: WTF?
Interviewer 2: I have the girl, she wrote me a letter, it happened 36 years ago!
Interviewer 2: What?
Robinson: Who?
Interviewer 2: She wrote me the letter a week ago! This person cannot be at the #3 position!
Interviewer 1: You've had it for how long?!
Robinson: What!?
Interviewer 2: Do you deny it!?
Robinson: What! *censored* you! Yeah I deny it!
Interviewer 1: Why didn't you bring this up before the interview?!
Interviewer 2: He's lying! I demand the accuser be interviewed!
Interviewer 1: That's crazy! This isn't a trial! Why didn't you say something earlier!?
Interviewer 2: But the accuser doesn't want to be interviewed here. We need to go to her house.
Interviewer 1: What!?
Interviewer 2: OK, she'll come here. But we need an investigation!
Interviewer 1: A what? For rape? That happened 35 years ago? We don't do that!
Interviewer 2: You're a rape apologist!
Interviewer 1: I am not!
Interviewer 2: Look at his outburst, proof he is lying!
Robinson: *censored* you, man! You've had it in for me the minute I walked in here!
Interviewer 2: Tsk tsk. Look at how he loses his temper. He could never play at the #3 position. And now he's throwing conspiracy theories out there. "You had it in for me". It's obvious that we can't risk hiring this man for the #3 position.
Interviewer 1: But you havn't proven anything!
Robinson: This is bull*censored*!
Interviewer 2: I don't have to prove anything. This isn't a trial. You said it yourself!
Interviewer 1: But you're the one calling for an investigation!
Interviewer 2: We can't risk hiring a possible rapist. Do you want to hire a rapist!?
Interviewer 1: No!
Interviewer 2: I think you do.
Robinson: I didn't do it!
Interviewer 2: Look at him foaming at the mouth! Obviously unfit to be hired!
Interviewer 1: What?! Is it because he's a rapist or because he has a temper?!
Interviewer 2: He's a possible rapist, but it's obvious he has a temper!
Robinson: You can kiss my ass!
Interviewer 1: You're crazy.
-
When I smoke too much sativa, I end up believing that I have superpowers like tactile lie detection (like DeNiro in Meet the Parents). Amusingly, two people have been tripped up into making criminal admissions through my pulse holding lie detection interviews. LoL.
-
When I smoke too much sativa, I end up believing that I have superpowers like tactile lie detection (like DeNiro in Meet the Parents). Amusingly, two people have been tripped up into making criminal admissions through my pulse holding lie detection interviews. LoL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ5aIvjNgao
-
I'd say it's the other way around. The only way we have of knowing anything of what our past consisted of is memory, other than physical evidence like diaries and pictures and video. So to say "I didn't do that" is synonymous with "I don't remember doing that", from a personal point of view.
True, but as we know from pictures and videos, there are times when people have done things that we don't remember, especially after drinking heavily. ;)
And if you accept the premise that not remembering is the same as not doing it, then you must admit that being "100 percent certain" is as close to certainty as humanly possible without physical evidence.
Did you take a look at Ford's yearbook (also apparently available) that showed her own school also actively participated in a culture of getting wasted? Would it have any impact, if Ms. Ford herself routinely was drunk to the point of passing out?
Probably not. I have heard that getting drunk inhibits short-term memories from becoming long-term memories, which would either make her forget the whole incident or make the memories foggy. It wouldn't help making her "100 percent certain" of the memory.
However, getting drunk would make more likely to completely forget about an incident, making it more likely someone didn't do it (as far as he was concerned). ;)
I know you in particular love speculation about Kavanaugh's other acts.
I speculate because that would be a strong indication that he may have done this act. Sexual predators usually do it more than one time. If he was the type of person to attack Ford as reported, there is a good possibility that he did it other times, too.
Discovering other such acts would give more credence to Dr. Ford's testimony. Not finding them would take some away. Not to say either would prove this particular incident, but it would be evidence making it more likely one way or another.
-
I speculate because that would be a strong indication that he may have done this act. Sexual predators usually do it more than one time. If he was the type of person to attack Ford as reported, there is a good possibility that he did it other times, too.
Well exactly, except we have an enormous history, including many high profile positions where people were highly motivated to take him down. You're talklng about someone who worked with Ken Starr and in the Bush WhiteHouse, whose prior nomination was difficult for political reasons.
Discovering other such acts would give more credence to Dr. Ford's testimony. Not finding them would take some away. Not to say either would prove this particular incident, but it would be evidence making it more likely one way or another.
And discovering that Ford had a history of getting drunk and sleeping with men that she didn't know and can't clearly remember would do anything for you? What if such behavior pre-dated and post-dated this event?
Discovering that Ford had a history of hallucinations would mean anything to you?
I'm not, by the way, saying any of these events occurred (as far as I know only the yearbook stuff is real), but if we're judging credibility where two people flat out contradict each other. How can whether one drank too much in high school and had questionable stuff in their yearbook be "relevant" while the other gets to keep any details of their life that they wish off the table?
Even if you trust Ford, and she seems like a nice person, I don't trust her lawyers and the big money that's behind them and this whole situation. Her social media was scrubbed for a reason. Her reviews as a professor were deleted for a reason. She was pre-scrubbed deliberately in anticipation of being made public and that is factually inconsistent with her story of being reluctantly outed. Taking a lie detector immediately is as well, but that's blamed on her lawyers - who are literally democratic operatives introduced to her by Pelosi's office.
I'd like you to speculate on one thing. Who leaked her account?
-
Just because somebody gets drunk and has frequent consensual sex does not alter whether or not they get raped or how believable they are.
Just as somebody can get raped by their spouse after 10 years of consensual sex.
Sex workers can very much be raped even if they went to a room with the intent to have sex in exchange for cash.
Even if Ford had gotten loaded, tripped on LSD, and had sex with Bret previously on several occasions, he could still have tried to rape her.
-
Could it have happened? There is a possibility. But you're not getting any help from me. "I don't recall" functions the same as "I didn't do it". And when I say "I don't recall", I'm saying "I'm pretty certain".
This might be true if court cases had anything to do with everyone telling the truth to get to the bottom of the case. But rather, court cases, and criminal investigation in general, is an adversarial situation where "I don't recall" has become a legal shield rather than a statement about whether someone remembers. As a statement of fact this sort of answer is completely tainted, I'm sad to say. It may as well read as "I refuse to answer that question." Since we can't read minds there's no way to prove, usually, that "I don't recall" is a lie, and so this is a freebie for perjury when speaking under oath. As a result of this, "I have no memory of that happening", which realistically should read as "it didn't happen unless my memory is really messed up" instead reads as "no comment."
-
Interesting food for thought:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4952162-Rachel-Mitchell-S-Analysis.html#document/p8
Rachel Mitchell's Memo to the SJC. Admittedly a "Republican Operative", I guess. I don't know what the criteria are for being a "Republican Operative". Maybe you just have to be paid by Republicans. Maybe you need a "666" tattooed on your lower back. Maybe you have to drink the blood of a child from a golden chalice while the group chants "Kochs Forever". I dunno.
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the
event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this
case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
This isn't the strongest of points. Is '82 in the early or mid-eighties? I know what I would say, but I know people all over who are not as exact as me.
Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
Weak, and she admits it. No reason to name her assailant to her therapist. Naming him and releasing the notes would have helped though.
Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.
Mmmmmmm, meaty.
She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that
house was located with any specificity.
Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her
house.
o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and
subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she
did not look like she had been attacked.
o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward
to identify him or herself as the driver.
o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming
downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she
did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the
assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was
taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.
Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as
having attended—including her lifelong friend.
Here we go. Republican talking points. Then again, she's using "corroborated" instead of "refutes", so she's obviously not reading the memos and is a lousy Operative. Lv 3 at the most. Int<12. What are the attribute requirements for the Republican Operative class? Maybe there are not requirements, but restrictions? Like, if you have Wis > 7, you can't be a Republican Operative?
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee,
Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was
present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
o Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.
15 year old girl with friend goes to a party. Leaves without friend. Friend doesn't remember this. 15 year old girl never talks about it with friend. I dunno. I guess weirder things have happened.
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
• According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.
o In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
o She testified that Judge Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.
OK. This is what' I'm fixated on. I think her point is that the stories are not consistent. To me, one story seems impossible. If she runs into the bathroom and locks a door, and there is music playing in the room loud enough so no one can hear her scream, how could she hear a conversation, or even voices, coming from the bottom of the stairwell? So the answer is that Ford assumed a conversation was taking place? OK. That's a fair assumption I guess. That's what happens at parties. But why put assumptions in a letter of accusation?
Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
OK. She's forgetful. Maybe ditzy? Maybe not the best of witnesses?
It's neat but it's not some kind of Kavanaugh victory. She's saying what everyone has been saying for days. The testimony was never enough. Kudos for the Democrats for demanding an investigation. Because without something else, they have next to nothing.
-
Could it have happened? There is a possibility. But you're not getting any help from me. "I don't recall" functions the same as "I didn't do it". And when I say "I don't recall", I'm saying "I'm pretty certain".
This might be true if court cases had anything to do with everyone telling the truth to get to the bottom of the case. But rather, court cases, and criminal investigation in general, is an adversarial situation where "I don't recall" has become a legal shield rather than a statement about whether someone remembers. As a statement of fact this sort of answer is completely tainted, I'm sad to say. It may as well read as "I refuse to answer that question." Since we can't read minds there's no way to prove, usually, that "I don't recall" is a lie, and so this is a freebie for perjury when speaking under oath. As a result of this, "I have no memory of that happening", which realistically should read as "it didn't happen unless my memory is really messed up" instead reads as "no comment."
Well, the question is, if we kill all the lawyers, will we be better off or worse off? I understand the legal shield argument, but when you have a lawyer, that's what they are going to tell you to say. Regardless, the statement remains true: "If I didn't do something I won't have any memory of it".
-
Regardless, the statement remains true: "If I didn't do something I won't have any memory of it".
That's not the point. In both scenarios - one where a person's memory says a thing didn't happen, and another where they are refusing to answer - the statement given is identical. Therefore for all intents and purposes all "I do not recall" statements can be read as a refusal to answer, even if that's 'obviously' not what is intended. But you can't choose to read "it didn't happen" into a statement that is identical to when people are refusing to answer. Basically, because the term exists as a legal shield it erases its usefulness as a legitimate statement about the connection between memory and what really happened.
-
I speculate because that would be a strong indication that he may have done this act. Sexual predators usually do it more than one time. If he was the type of person to attack Ford as reported, there is a good possibility that he did it other times, too.
Well exactly, except we have an enormous history, including many high profile positions where people were highly motivated to take him down. You're talking about someone who worked with Ken Starr and in the Bush White House, whose prior nomination was difficult for political reasons.
This pretty much assumes that if there were any accusations, they would have surfaced already. But Kavanaugh was not as prominent in his previous positions, so people with information may not have been aware of him or had sufficient motivation to reveal their stories. (After all, how much did you know about him before his nomination? How much had you thought about him?) The previous investigations may not have dug deep enough. Or they may not have considered certain accusations as relevant.
Besides, if he was so prominent in the past, why didn't the Evil Democrats (tm) make the false accusations and take him down then? ;)
Of course, the best way to determine whether there is nothing to find is...to do an investigation and look. :) Something the Republicans have fought against tooth and nail.
Discovering other such acts would give more credence to Dr. Ford's testimony. Not finding them would take some away. Not to say either would prove this particular incident, but it would be evidence making it more likely one way or another.
And discovering that Ford had a history of getting drunk and sleeping with men that she didn't know and can't clearly remember would do anything for you? What if such behavior pre-dated and post-dated this event?
Not remembering other men would have no bearing on her clear memory of this incident.
Discovering that Ford had a history of hallucinations would mean anything to you?
That would have some bearing, depending on the type of hallucinations and how much she believed them. Seeing pink elephants or dinosaur patrolmen wouldn't make her mistake another man for Kavanaugh. But it would be relevant.
I'm not, by the way, saying any of these events occurred (as far as I know only the yearbook stuff is real), but if we're judging credibility where two people flat out contradict each other. How can whether one drank too much in high school and had questionable stuff in their yearbook be "relevant" while the other gets to keep any details of their life that they wish off the table?
Kavanaugh's drinking is relevant because it brings into question his self-control and memory. His yearbook entries brings into question his attitudes about sex at the time, and whether he might have been willing to attack Ford.
Ford's drinking would have clouded her memory, not make them clearer. And how would questionable stuff in her yearbook be relevant to her getting attacked?
I'm sure there is plenty of embarrassing stuff that Kavanaugh did that hasn't been mentioned. Only the relevant stuff has been, so far, AFAIK.
Even if you trust Ford, and she seems like a nice person, I don't trust her lawyers and the big money that's behind them and this whole situation. Her social media was scrubbed for a reason. Her reviews as a professor were deleted for a reason. She was pre-scrubbed deliberately in anticipation of being made public and that is factually inconsistent with her story of being reluctantly outed. Taking a lie detector immediately is as well, but that's blamed on her lawyers - who are literally democratic operatives introduced to her by Pelosi's office.
I don't know if it is "inconsistent." I would think that making your profile lower would be consistent with avoiding the spotlight.
I'd like you to speculate on one thing. Who leaked her account?
Interesting question. Electoral-vote.com noted that it was leaked right after the information was given to the FBI. They suspect it might have been someone at the agency. Personally, I believe the FBI is closed-mouthed enough that they wouldn't, but there are those in the agency who are Republican sympathizers, so it is possible.
Otherwise, I don't know enough of the players to make any interesting speculations.
-
Well exactly, except we have an enormous history, including many high profile positions where people were highly motivated to take him down. You're talking about someone who worked with Ken Starr and in the Bush White House, whose prior nomination was difficult for political reasons.
This pretty much assumes that if there were any accusations, they would have surfaced already. But Kavanaugh was not as prominent in his previous positions, so people with information may not have been aware of him or had sufficient motivation to reveal their stories. (After all, how much did you know about him before his nomination? How much had you thought about him?) The previous investigations may not have dug deep enough. Or they may not have considered certain accusations as relevant.
You're kidding right? Because you didn't know of him he wasn't prominent? His first nomination to the Circuit court lapsed without even getting a vote, his second faced heavy partisan resistance because he is not an unknown to the people in Washington.
The only real difference is that back then they were focusing more on substance than victory at any cost.
If you read Judicial opinions you had some familiarity with him.
Besides, if he was so prominent in the past, why didn't the Evil Democrats (tm) make the false accusations and take him down then? ;)
Because prior to the hyperpartisan era they would have rightly been called out by the media for transparently ignoring their actual duties.
Of course, the best way to determine whether there is nothing to find is...to do an investigation and look. :) Something the Republicans have fought against tooth and nail.
You mean like the 45 days of investigation? The four days of hearings? More disclosures of previous writings than any justice in history? Answering more interrogatories than ALL prior justices nominated in history?
Or do you mean an investigation sufficient to allow Democratic Senators to reach an "informed" decision to oppose his nomination within 10 minutes of it being announced? In some cases with a fill in the blank announcement?
And discovering that Ford had a history of getting drunk and sleeping with men that she didn't know and can't clearly remember would do anything for you? What if such behavior pre-dated and post-dated this event?
Not remembering other men would have no bearing on her clear memory of this incident.
Having in the record her level of alcohol consumption, might cause one to question her incredibly precise claim to have had exactly one beer, which would go to the clarify of the memory. I do agree with you that we don't allow that information because it's irrelevant and prejudicial, just pointing out the hyposcrisy in viewing any random negative information about the man as relevant.
Kavanaugh's drinking is relevant because it brings into question his self-control and memory. His yearbook entries brings into question his attitudes about sex at the time, and whether he might have been willing to attack Ford.
That's not why the Dems brought it up. They brought it up specifically because this is banana court justice played out in the court of public opinion. It's prejudicial therefore its relevant to them. It's just a fact that if you played out Ford's history with alcohol and men it would ALSO be prejudicial and cause people not to believe her. In both cases the point of bringing it up is to cause the prejudice.
Ford's drinking would have clouded her memory, not make them clearer. And how would questionable stuff in her yearbook be relevant to her getting attacked?
Having passed out upstairs and woken up with someone on top of her, instead of the one drink version, could very likely have led to a compound memory. Even a blending of different days. If her memory was muddled, and reformed in 2012, what she'd be certain about NOW is the reconstruction she created in 2012, not the original event.
I'm sure there is plenty of embarrassing stuff that Kavanaugh did that hasn't been mentioned. Only the relevant stuff has been, so far, AFAIK.
Bloofing? Nuff Said.
I don't know if it is "inconsistent." I would think that making your profile lower would be consistent with avoiding the spotlight.
Her profile was scrubbed to avoid any reference to discrediting information. It's a standard legal tactic these days for lawyers to require it. The point is kind of dishonest on both sides, as the one side would strain to take it out of context (exactly like the Dems did with Kavanaugh's yearbook), while the other side will eliminate relevant things (like if a personal injury client is skydiving on their Instagram).
I'd like you to speculate on one thing. Who leaked her account?
Interesting question. Electoral-vote.com noted that it was leaked right after the information was given to the FBI. They suspect it might have been someone at the agency. Personally, I believe the FBI is closed-mouthed enough that they wouldn't, but there are those in the agency who are Republican sympathizers, so it is possible.
Go look again. The reporter that initially reported it, said it wasn't Feinstein, but also seemed to say that Feinstein was under pressure from the other Democrats to leak the letter. Ergo, they knew about the letter itself. Still only 3 possible sources for that. Which means - very likely - Feinstein lied in the hearing because she had discussed the letter with other Democrats.
Otherwise, I don't know enough of the players to make any interesting speculations.
LOL, lol, lol. You don't know enough to make speculations. lol.
-
You're kidding right? Because you didn't know of him he wasn't prominent? His first nomination to the Circuit court lapsed without even getting a vote, his second faced heavy partisan resistance because he is not an unknown to the people in Washington.
The only real difference is that back then they were focusing more on substance than victory at any cost.
If you read Judicial opinions you had some familiarity with him.
Well, I didn't read Judicial opinions. Nor did I hear about him when he was first nominated. Chances are, neither did Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. These are the "people with information" I was referring to.
If the previous investigations did not find these people, obviously they did not go deep enough.
Because prior to the hyperpartisan era they would have rightly been called out by the media for transparently ignoring their actual duties.
Oh, hyperpartisan like the way the Republicans ignored Garland's nomination? Yeah, but that was another time...
You mean like the 45 days of investigation? The four days of hearings? More disclosures of previous writings than any justice in history? Answering more interrogatories than ALL prior justices nominated in history?
Or do you mean an investigation sufficient to allow Democratic Senators to reach an "informed" decision to oppose his nomination within 10 minutes of it being announced? In some cases with a fill in the blank announcement?
Are you implying that 45 days of investigation was enough? Then why didn't they find Dr. Ford if it was such a good investigation? ;)
Four days of hearings? Is there some time limit? Must be well over 300 days, IIRC.
More disclosures? Didn't Kavanaugh have more writings than almost any other judge? And weren't some hundreds of pages only released on the morning of the first day of hearings?
More interrogatories? With that many pages of writings, don't you think that might bring up more questions than usual? And just how many previous judges were accused of attempted rape before him? ;)
And how long did it take Republicans to make an informed decision about Garland? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never even talked to him. :P
That's not why the Dems brought it up. They brought it up specifically because this is banana court justice played out in the court of public opinion. It's prejudicial therefore its relevant to them. It's just a fact that if you played out Ford's history with alcohol and men it would ALSO be prejudicial and cause people not to believe her. In both cases the point of bringing it up is to cause the prejudice.
Odd how you think that drinking and attitudes about women are relevant to an attempted rape accusation.
However, a vast majority disagree.
Having passed out upstairs and woken up with someone on top of her, instead of the one drink version, could very likely have led to a compound memory. Even a blending of different days. If her memory was muddled, and reformed in 2012, what she'd be certain about NOW is the reconstruction she created in 2012, not the original event.
Fair enough, although a bit of a stretch.
Bloofing? Nuff Said.
Oh, yeah, all high school boys talk about throwing up because of weak stomachs. Riiiightttt... ::)
Go look again. The reporter that initially reported it, said it wasn't Feinstein, but also seemed to say that Feinstein was under pressure from the other Democrats to leak the letter. Ergo, they knew about the letter itself. Still only 3 possible sources for that. Which means - very likely - Feinstein lied in the hearing because she had discussed the letter with other Democrats.
If you have a good source on the timeline, I'd like to see it. I haven't been paying too much attention about when the letter was leaked. And what's the big deal about the letter being leaked again? I know Dr. Ford wanted to stay anonymous, but I also recall Feinstein being criticized for not revealing the letter earlier. So which was it that the Republicans wanted to happen again?
-
Or do you mean an investigation sufficient to allow Democratic Senators to reach an "informed" decision to oppose his nomination within 10 minutes of it being announced? In some cases with a fill in the blank announcement?
And how long did it take Republicans to make an informed decision about Garland? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never even talked to him. :P
It sounds like you both agree with me that both parties should be thrown into a dumpster :)
Odd how you think that drinking and attitudes about women are relevant to an attempted rape accusation.
This wasn't addressed to me, but there's a problem about associating "attitudes" with events. There are ways of looking at this that are reasonable, and ways that are Kafkaesque. For instance if a person's "attitude" was that women are just begging to be raped, and a real man will man up and do that, well then I'd say that it can be reasonably suggested that someone who feels this way might well have acted on it. On the other hand, if "attitudes" refers to the usual 'boys talk' nonsense about getting beers and trying to impress the ladies, and even if this includes misogyny type jokes, you can't link that to an actual event reasonably. You can't go from "crass jokes with buddies" to "therefore a 50% probability that he would have raped." You cannot generate a probability from such an attitude, full stop. Even an attempt to do so is a Kafka-type trial, where a person's perceived 'sin-presence' carries over into any area of the person's life you like and because he's "guilty" of one thing (as we all are) then he surely may be guilty of anything else that can be conjured up as well. A 'tendency to drink and joke about women' does not have any reasonable relationship to raping, and even bringing it up suggests to me an attempt to malign outside of the boundaries of logic and sense.
I'm not saying I think he didn't do it, btw. But what I'm saying is that looking for "interesting" tidbits from his past for "insight" into whether he would have raped is not evidence. In fact, I would hope that even suggesting that because he drank in his youth he may have raped should be grounds for a defamation suit.
-
Well, I didn't read Judicial opinions. Nor did I hear about him when he was first nominated. Chances are, neither did Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. These are the "people with information" I was referring to.
If they are to be believed, they would in fact be aware of him and what was going on. Not to mention if you want to establish a "pattern" similar acts would have been known to people that were asked questions during the vetting process.
We all know how far the left will go to dig up dirt.
If the previous investigations did not find these people, obviously they did not go deep enough.
Or more obviously, they were not there to be found. Pants down at a party is nonsense claim. Even if it were true, which the accuser wasn't certain over, it wouldn't be relevant to bring it up. It's only being cited because of a desparate need to hand craft a "pattern".
The rape train claims would have come up if they were true.
Because prior to the hyperpartisan era they would have rightly been called out by the media for transparently ignoring their actual duties.
Oh, hyperpartisan like the way the Republicans ignored Garland's nomination? Yeah, but that was another time...
Lol, did you miss where the media repeatedly and loudly called them out for that?
The media is an active partisan here.
Are you implying that 45 days of investigation was enough?
Yes it was enough.
Then why didn't they find Dr. Ford if it was such a good investigation? ;)
Because by her own version of the story she never told anyone for 30 years.
Or, as possibly, cause she remembered the event and in explaining it to her husband started trying to remember who it was who did it, and managed to find the two most famous men from the class? And again, accordingly, it didn't exist when they looked at him before.
Four days of hearings? Is there some time limit? Must be well over 300 days, IIRC.
Well yes there are time limits. Given that a President has thousands of officials to appoint, spending 4 days on each of them would mean it would take what, 7 or 8 years to vet them, given holidays and other business?
In any event the hearings on this WERE NOT USED to really investigate. They were used to allow the Senators to create commercials for their campaigns. If you're going to be on a high horse about process, then your side should have clean hands. NO SUBSTANTIVE questions to Ford from the side looking for the truth.
More disclosures? Didn't Kavanaugh have more writings than almost any other judge? And weren't some hundreds of pages only released on the morning of the first day of hearings?
No. The Senators had access to them before that. How do you think they formulated their questions and generated "Spartucus" moments?
More interrogatories? With that many pages of writings, don't you think that might bring up more questions than usual? And just how many previous judges were accused of attempted rape before him? ;)
Well, no. They had more than enough to evaluate him. The Democrats literally claimed that Kagan's record (far less) was beyond what it takes. It's just hypocrisy to claim Kavanaugh's wasn't. It's also ridiculous to claim that people WHO DIDN'T NEED TO READ ANYTHING to oppose the nomination where asking questions in good faith.
And there was no accusation at the time he was asked to provide those interrogatories. Which literally means your last implication is just nonsense.
And how long did it take Republicans to make an informed decision about Garland? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never even talked to him. :P
That's because, unlike Democrats, Republicans -some at least- would have been obligated to vote for him because he was qualified. Many voted for Kagan and Sotomayer and they are far more blatantly political than anyone else nominated to the court.
If Garland got a hearing and vote he would be on the Supreme Court because enough Republicans would never do what the Democrats are doing here. I'll just be blunt, enough Republicans are honorable that it could only play out that way, I don't see any Democrat who is going to do their duty and vote in favor because he's qualified (literally, one of the most qualified people ever nominated).
That's not why the Dems brought it up. They brought it up specifically because this is banana court justice played out in the court of public opinion. It's prejudicial therefore its relevant to them. It's just a fact that if you played out Ford's history with alcohol and men it would ALSO be prejudicial and cause people not to believe her. In both cases the point of bringing it up is to cause the prejudice.
Odd how you think that drinking and attitudes about women are relevant to an attempted rape accusation.
I see. You think every one who drinks is now presumed guilty of attempted rape. And I'm the one that's odd.
Why don't you think its relevant that he was a virgin until after law school. That was a surprise the Dems didn't see coming and they just pretend they don't know it.
However, a vast majority disagree.
Exactly my point. It's prejudicial. It's the same reason they want Judge on the stand, not so he provide any material information, but because he wrote a salacious book that paints a bad picture.
It's the exact same reason they don't want Ford's history on the table. A vast majority would stop believing her if she was a heavy drinker and partier and promiscuous (which, based on her yearbook, may not be difficult to establish).
Face it, you are quite literally the poster case for why salacious and irrelevant facts should not be included.
Bloofing? Nuff Said.
Oh, yeah, all high school boys talk about throwing up because of weak stomachs. Riiiightttt... ::)
Bloofing was passing gas I believe per the testimony. Care to walk through what any of that testimony had to do with his judicial competence?
If you have a good source on the timeline, I'd like to see it.
I don't have a good source. I looked at about 10 partisan renditions (most from the left) and about half reported that Feinstein sent it to the FBI because she was under pressure from other Democratic Senators (and all but one skipped the insight that this meant there was a leak, the one implied that Feinstein had discussed that she had the letter and what it was about but not the names - which is pretty much an admission that she leaked it, with predictable results that her colleagues further leaked it).
I haven't been paying too much attention about when the letter was leaked. And what's the big deal about the letter being leaked again?
That is was leaked as a tactic. Ford asked for confidentiality. Confidentiality is available, and frequently used, in the Senates existing process. Feinstein knew that, so did the Senate Dems, they deliberately avoided (or at least she did) the process that would have complied with Ford's requests (which puts to lie the idea that Dems believe its a victims right to decide how and when to come forward).
Your party used her for what they think is the greater good. If you don't call that out, you're complicit in believing it was justified.
I know Dr. Ford wanted to stay anonymous, but I also recall Feinstein being criticized for not revealing the letter earlier. So which was it that the Republicans wanted to happen again?
See above, Feinstein was more than aware that a process existing to investigate and deal with the matter in confidence, she just decided it wasn't as helpful as forcing it public.
I mean heck, the lawyers - that Feinstein recommended - practically admitted to malpractice when Ford claimed that she didn't know that the Senate investigators offered to come to her. The alternative to it being malpractice, is that they did convey that information to Ford and she was incapable of remembering it or correctly processing it, which would go completely to her credibility.
-
Now the second door on her home lie has been exposed. Seriously, is there any part of Ford’s story that has held up to even the most cursory scrutiny?
Details that change, details that simply don’t exist, details that are proven false, literally every identified witness Ford put forth contradicts her story.
Look, everyone knows Ford is lying. Everyone. Nobody can possibly be so stupid they believe this. I mean, that’s nearly brain dead levels of stupidity. However, what they can do is be so dishonest as to claim they believe it.
Anyone saying they believe this crap should never be trusted to tell the truth again.
-
Well Crunch if you thought that was interesting you'll love this. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm)
If this is legit, her past live in boyfriend of six years, has called into question whether she perjured herself on a number of factors.
He says he saw her prep a friend for a polygraph test, which she specifically denied having done.
He says she never mentioned any fear of flying, even when they took a small prop plane.
Never mentioned the events, or any fears of small spaces, single door apartments,
That after the broke up (because she cheated on him), he removed her from the joint credit card and she lied about running up $600 in charges until he threatened to bring in fraud protection.
-
The behind the scenes activities that went on to thrust this house of lies forward upon the American people will make a thrilling story arc over a few episodes of House of Cards.
-
Let's not forget at least one other lies to go on the pile, that Kavanaugh said he never got blackout drunk. And that the devil's triangle was a drinking game.
-
I'm not sure how saying he never got blackout drunk is a lie. If you did get blackout drunk how could someone tell the difference between that and him just going to sleep? And how could he tell the difference himself? I mean theoretically maybe somebody could tell if someone is blackout drunk but usually people just let drunk people sleep. And devil's triangle could have more than one meaning. Anyone could make up a drinking game and call it that even if it has another meaning, or even because it has another meaning.
-
I'm not sure how saying he never got blackout drunk is a lie. If you did get blackout drunk how could someone tell the difference between that and him just going to sleep? And how could he tell the difference himself? I mean theoretically maybe somebody could tell if someone is blackout drunk but usually people just let drunk people sleep. And devil's triangle could have more than one meaning. Anyone could make up a drinking game and call it that even if it has another meaning, or even because it has another meaning.
Maybe there's a specific meaning for "blackout" beyond "I got sleepy because I had drunk alcohol". Apparently lost memories can result, which more or less means the long-term memories didn't form due to incapacitated mental state. I don't know if "I've never blacked out" could be interpreted as just meaning "there's no such thing as blacking out, there's just going to sleep." Is that really true? Or is anyone who gets sleepy while drunk and goes to sleep "blacked out"?
-
While far from a clinical definition the way my friends and I ever used it refereed to the lose of memory NOT the unconsciousness.
If your friends relay to you what YOU did at that party and you go, "I don't remember any of that..." Then you got blackout drunk.
If you fell asleep early on due to too much drinking we would say, "you passed out early", and likely would have derided you with various dispersion regarding your low alcohol tolerance.
I never got "blackout drunk" by that definition, but I on more than one occasion found myself a comfy chair and "passed out" early on while the party continued. :P
Other friends who urinated or vomited in places not designed to receive either... or did amazingly silly/dangerous/stupid things without remembering them? They got "blackout drunk".
-
Black out is definitely a memory loss, as in you remember the early evening but you don't remember some or all of the later part of the evening. Pretty sure he said he hadn't blacked or passed out.
On the latter, it's pretty hard to distinguish between passing out and going to sleep. He specifically said he never woke up any where different than where he went to sleep. Passing out may not entail any memory loss, or at least any more than a person that is not drunk and is falling asleep on the couch may have. I know I've had conversations while sober and woken from a deep sleep that I don't remember. None of that is relevant here, she never claimed he passed out. All we would be discussing is having blacked out and having no memory.
It's hard to imagine TheDrake that you could have a legitimate basis to claim he perjured himself in saying he never blacked out. You'd have to have proof of an event occurring that he doesn't remember (which if he denies the event is impossible to determine if he's lying). In this case, we DON'T have proof the event occurred and the accusation is uncorroborated and not terribly credible.
-
If Ford added the second door to get around zoning codes, that would certainly seem to impugn her testimony.
And while the ex-boyfriend did provide some interesting revelations, the details haven't been confirmed (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/conservatives-should-be-cautious-about-letter-from-christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend), and the woman who Ford purportedly coached about polygraph tests has already denied it. (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/longtime-friend-denies-ford-helped-her-prepare-for-polygraph-exam)
Hopefully the FBI will have a chance to investigate these claims (in the few hours they have left ::) ).
-
This whole mess is absurd
-
It's hard to imagine TheDrake that you could have a legitimate basis to claim he perjured himself in saying he never blacked out. You'd have to have proof of an event occurring that he doesn't remember (which if he denies the event is impossible to determine if he's lying). In this case, we DON'T have proof the event occurred and the accusation is uncorroborated and not terribly credible.
Anyone who runs around boofing with his DKE pals is going to get blackout drunk. No, I can't point to a specific detail or a person making the claim that they talked to him the morning after a party and he didn't remember a large chunk of time. It strains plausibility to the breaking point.
As for the credibility of an anonymous ex-boyfriend recounting his experiences with her 20-25 years ago... and one whose own statement describes that she cheated on him and used his credit card after they broke up? That doesn't really prove perjury either.
-
It's hard to imagine TheDrake that you could have a legitimate basis to claim he perjured himself in saying he never blacked out. You'd have to have proof of an event occurring that he doesn't remember (which if he denies the event is impossible to determine if he's lying). In this case, we DON'T have proof the event occurred and the accusation is uncorroborated and not terribly credible.
Anyone who runs around boofing with his DKE pals is going to get blackout drunk. No, I can't point to a specific detail or a person making the claim that they talked to him the morning after a party and he didn't remember a large chunk of time. It strains plausibility to the breaking point.
As for the credibility of an anonymous ex-boyfriend recounting his experiences with her 20-25 years ago... and one whose own statement describes that she cheated on him and used his credit card after they broke up? That doesn't really prove perjury either.
Well, its not anonymous. The man in question is Brian Merrick. I do find it somewhat humorous that many people are completely willing to take Ford's uncorroborated testimony as unassailable truth but very quickly discount this man's testimony because it is uncorroborated
-
Well, Ford's testimony is not unassailable (see above). And it is just as humorous that many people take this man's testimony at face value but believe Ford to be a liar because she can't corroborate her experiences. ;)
-
I'm not sure how saying he never got blackout drunk is a lie. If you did get blackout drunk how could someone tell the difference between that and him just going to sleep? And how could he tell the difference himself? I mean theoretically maybe somebody could tell if someone is blackout drunk but usually people just let drunk people sleep. And devil's triangle could have more than one meaning. Anyone could make up a drinking game and call it that even if it has another meaning, or even because it has another meaning.
You have to remember, we're almost 25 years into the era of Yahoo and Google Search. These events were 10 years before that, which is hard for even a lot of people who should know better to fathom at this point. They want to assume that "the devils triangle" was some kind of standardized game/activity that had or has a web page out there somewhere and that is where Kavanaugh and company got it from. They're not finding it on Google, (and good luck with that now) so it must not have existed as he described
-
Maybe there's a specific meaning for "blackout" beyond "I got sleepy because I had drunk alcohol". Apparently lost memories can result, which more or less means the long-term memories didn't form due to incapacitated mental state. I don't know if "I've never blacked out" could be interpreted as just meaning "there's no such thing as blacking out, there's just going to sleep." Is that really true? Or is anyone who gets sleepy while drunk and goes to sleep "blacked out"?
My understanding of "blackout drunk" isn't that the person gets drunk and passes out. Blackout drunk is a little more specific. More particularly, the person is still conscious, and actively participating in things and activities with everyone else, but after waking up the next morning, remembers nothing after the point which they "blacked out" and memory recall stops.
In other words, "balckout drunk" is not (quite) the same thing as having a blackout while operating heavy equipment, driving down the road, or doing a number of other things. (Most notably: Performing high-G maneuvers in an aircraft) As loss of consciousness does not happen, only the lack of ability to recall what happened later is "blacked out."
-
I guess I never stopped to realize that being blackout drunk directly implies not blacking out. Go figure.
-
While it's possible that the Devil's Triangle was a drinking game they made up. If so I have little doubt that the inspiration for the name was the commonly used definition. Maybe I just hung out with more pervs, but I knew what that one was well before google and urban dictionary was a thing...
Had he said, "It's not what you are thinking, we named a drinking game that." Or some variation of this excuse, I'd have been willing to roll my eyes and think, "OK, I suppose that's plausible." To suggest it wasn't at least a nod towards the MMF threesome in the form of something unrelated stretches credulity.
Though maybe I'm wrong and they told stories and took a shot for every friend, relative or second cousin who lost a yacht or private plane in the Bermuda Triangle... Or maybe one of them tried to draw a pentagram and was stopped mid way when someone more sober pointed out that would be a star of David. From then on it was a running joke about The Devil's Triangle, that the others would never let go... Anything's possible... I guess...
::)
-
I’m working now as a DNC campaign canvasser for Stacey Abrams (D) for Georgia governor!) and in training today I used “blackout” to refer to how certain black majority neighborhoods in 2016 were prevented from going to the polls.
-
While it's possible that the Devil's Triangle was a drinking game they made up. If so I have little doubt that the inspiration for the name was the commonly used definition. Maybe I just hung out with more pervs, but I knew what that one was well before google and urban dictionary was a thing...
My guess for a more innocent answer would be partaking in "three evil spirits" which would get you to their possible Devil's Triangle. Somehow I suspect the three in question were probably hard liquors, or some other combination that was likely to put the whammy on somebody if they weren't careful.
I know I heard plenty of stories about other sailors mixing Everclear and Mad Dog, and I know there are plenty of other options out there.
Or maybe it was simply a mix of three different kinds of beers, these were high school students after all. Without bothering to obtain context for the "Devil's Triangle" reference, hard to tell.
-
Ultimately any term could mean anything in a localized context. What will be interesting is if anyone comes forward within his circle and says that is absolutely not what they meant by those terms. Of course, that person will likely lean Democrat, and then get accused of being a paid political operative.
-
While it's possible that the Devil's Triangle was a drinking game they made up. If so I have little doubt that the inspiration for the name was the commonly used definition. Maybe I just hung out with more pervs, but I knew what that one was well before google and urban dictionary was a thing...
Had he said, "It's not what you are thinking, we named a drinking game that." Or some variation of this excuse, I'd have been willing to roll my eyes and think, "OK, I suppose that's plausible." To suggest it wasn't at least a nod towards the MMF threesome in the form of something unrelated stretches credulity.
Though maybe I'm wrong and they told stories and took a shot for every friend, relative or second cousin who lost a yacht or private plane in the Bermuda Triangle... Or maybe one of them tried to draw a pentagram and was stopped mid way when someone more sober pointed out that would be a star of David. From then on it was a running joke about The Devil's Triangle, that the others would never let go... Anything's possible... I guess...
::)
I’ve been around the block a time or two and never heard the phrase “devil’s triangle” for a MMF threesome. In fact, your post is the first reference I’ve seen to it so calling it a common usage is not accurate unless it’s common among your peer group.. In the 1980’s, Devil’s Triangle typically referred to the Bermuda Triangle where ships and people were lost - something that could happen in a drinking game. The triangle was pretty popular back then.
-
I like the "3 evil spirits" as in drinks theory. Obviously the people I hung out with were less clever, less paranormally inclined, and more amused by the puritanical/homophobic taboo... ;D
-
I like the "3 evil spirits" as in drinks theory. Obviously the people I hung out with were less clever, less paranormally inclined, and more amused by the puritanical/homophobic taboo... ;D
Well, it could be both the "3 evil spirits"(liquors) and a Bermuda Triangle thing, as I understand people under the influence of certain combinations of mixed drinks can become "rather lost" if left to themselves. (as alluded to be the earlier "Whammy" reference)
-
Would it be paranoid to think the GOP's next nominee for the SC (whether to replace Kavanaugh or to fill the next vacancy) is someone they know can be credibly accused of sexual misconduct? Just so they can make all such allegations sound like a Democrat excuse to reject a GOP nominee?
-
Yes
That the Democrats would risk coordinating an entirely fabricated "hit" in the form of a (knowingly) false claim is dangerous. To knowingly put forward a guilty party to bait the Democrats and have it come out would be catastrophic.
I'm sure there are some shady people on both sides willing to exploit the issue of sexual harassment and assault for political gains but I don't see power brokers making this type of risk-reward assessments.
-
Kavanaugh clearly lied repeatedly under oath. His ass should be thrown in jail for perjury. There is no way in hell he should hold any position as a judge, let alone as a Supreme Court Justice.
-
Kavanaugh clearly lied repeatedly under oath. His ass should be thrown in jail for perjury. There is no way in hell he should hold any position as a judge, let alone as a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm not following the case very closely; what were the lies?
-
Protestor: Kavanaugh should take a polygraph!
Sen Lindsey Graham (R SC): Why don’t we dunk him in water and see if he floats?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Note: Beer is slightly heavier than water. If he floats, he doesn’t like beer, and has purjured himself.
Sent from my iPhone
-
Reports indicate no corroboration of ford's account, which we mostly knew would be the case without the useless FBI investigation.
-
Kavanaugh clearly lied repeatedly under oath. His ass should be thrown in jail for perjury. There is no way in hell he should hold any position as a judge, let alone as a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm not following the case very closely; what were the lies?
I did follow this closely, and I second this request. Let's be specific what the "lies" are.
-
I suspect he lied about his drinking and farting games - Oh and when he new about the allegations (that one might be provable)
The more I hear from Kavanaugh that more I feel he does not deserve the job.
I suspect that deep down most Republicans feel the same why only they don't care (the lies are only little lies) and will pretend they don't see any character flaws.
The only thing that mattes is that Kavanaugh will vote the party line and that is all the Republicans want from their man
-
I suspect he lied about his drinking and farting games - Oh and when he new about the allegations (that one might be provable)
Suspect? That's not the standard for claiming someone lied.
The more I hear from Kavanaugh that more I feel he does not deserve the job.
I suspect that deep down most Republicans feel the same why only they don't care (the lies are only little lies) and will pretend they don't see any character flaws.
Well no. I'm not sure there is a more qualified judge. His opinion history, including his record on other courts' relying on his opinions and analysis is really very good. His reversal history is similarly very good. It's beyond silly to even think he wouldn't be an excellent SC justice.
His history on the field of character is also phenomenal. Absent these uncorroborated allegations he really has exemplary record of fairness, involvement, and compassion, as well as, a record of well above standard support to women in the legal profession (that's true not just as "Republican" judge, but with respect to all judges).
The Dem Senators were in full on destroy mode during the original part of his testimony with access to far more records than with respect to any prior candidate, and they uniformly failed to even slightly impugn him.
That's the real history here. If you come to know "more" about Kavanaugh, you'd actually support him more. If all you weigh is whether drinking in high school is relevant somehow to being a Supreme Court candidate decades letter then you might have reached a conclusion otherwise.
The only thing that mattes is that Kavanaugh will vote the party line and that is all the Republicans want from their man
Demonstrably false. What Republicans hope is that Kavanaugh will vote, consistent with his history, for to reduce the unilateral power of the courts as activists, to enforce the laws Congress has passed - as written, to reduce the deferral of discretion to unelected bureaucrats that have repeatedly exceeded their Congressional mandates, and ultimately to reign in the unilateral actions of the executive branch.
That's something that everyone should actually want. It interferes with the Democratic plan to keep Justices acting as a "supra-legislature" that has final say on what the law will be. It expressly limits their power to force change in non-Democratic manners by judicial fiat.
Honestly, the left should be embarrassed by the hypocrisy of claiming to want the people's voices to be heard, but in reality seeking to impose judicial kings to force their views on when they can't win an election.
-
See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?utm_term=.cbfd17b27b46
and
https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies
and
https://boingboing.net/2018/10/03/kavanaugh-lied.html
For instance.
-
In defense of your claims he lied, you're citing the work of others? Does that mean you endorse every line, or have no opinion of your own?
I followed all 3 of your links and I honestly don't see why you linked to them. They are just people claiming that things must be lies without offering any proof. A few are just differences of opinion (e.g., it's not a "lie" that he said Ford's claims were refuted, when her witnesses failed to corroborate them, notwithstanding, that one could claim a refutation would need to say expressly it never happened - I mean, some did say that in fact).
Be specific this time, which do you think is a lie and what evidence are you putting forward that shows it.
-
At least the WP link backed up the definition I knew for the Devil's Triangle. ;D
Then again I'd only very rarely heard the term "boffing" used. I thought that was just slang for sex/screwing/f'ing used primarily in the UK.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?utm_term=.cbfd17b27b46
I'll admit I sort of expected you to just list a few items as I don't have the fortitude to pour through several articles fact checking their claims. However I read through the first bunch of points in this specific article, and I've got to tell you that this seems beneath your usual standard for when you present facts here. The claims of his supposed lies in this one are hardly conclusive. Some of them seem to dance around the definitions of words; for instance was Kavanaugh "lying" when he said he'd never blacked out, when a friend of his claims to have definitely seen him extremely drunk and clearly incapable of controlling his actions or remembering them? Well I could imagine actually getting into an argument with a friend over a matter like this, about whether I 'really was' in control of my actions or not. I'm sure there's an issue of objectivity when someone is drunk and acting silly, about evaluating just how 'blacked out' they are. Maybe Kavanaugh was strictly claiming that he's never had missing memories or nights he can't remember, and so it wouldn't necessarily be a lie to find someone who saw him piss drunk. It sort of depends on how Kavanaugh handles liquor, right? I know people who can be too drunk to move but never miss a beat mentally (actually I am like that).
Another "lie" was that he claimed not to be a heavy drinker even though it was discovered that he was the "beach ralph club" champion or whatever. His answer to that is that he has a weak stomach and throws up easily, which would indeed make him the 'best at throwing up' even if he wasn't drinking nearly as much as others. Btw, I am also like that. I go right from slightly buzzed to sick with nothing in between, so I'd likely be a better 'ralpher' than someone who can drink into the wee hours of the night and never vomit or stop drinking.
Another "lie" was his claim that he had "refuted" some accusation, when the article author insists it was not refuted, and thus he lied. That one is just pathetic.
Now, maybe he did lie about stuff. Like I said I'm not following this closely. But that article was just looking to prove a point that it already knew it wanted to make, and that's weak in my book.
-
As far as those articles go, trying to list "lies" they do more harm than good in making their case. "Instances where his statements or answers strained credibility." Sure. It's (a little) subjective, but there is a huge line between "Lie" and "Almost Certainly BS". At least half of them were on the wrong side of that line.
-
As far as those articles go, trying to list "lies" they do more harm than good in making their case. "Instances where his statements or answers strained credibility." Sure. It's (a little) subjective, but there is a huge line between "Lie" and "Almost Certainly BS". At least half of them were on the wrong side of that line.
Maybe. But it was LR's claim that he should be in the slammo for perjury.
-
Some of them were obviously false. I'll leave it to the lawyery folk which of those reach the level of perjury.
-
Which ones were "obviously false"?
-
Which ones were "obviously false"?
In this context, lies do not mean false statements. You’re using a definition for lie that is not the same as current usage. Lies means I don’t like you or your ideas. If someone claims Kavanaugh is lying, they merely mean they don’t like him and oppose his nomination. It’s a perjorative that’s in vogue right now, like calling someone racist.
For example, if I said my favorite food was pepperoni pizza, I would be accused of lying. The “proof” would be that I’m a liar. Further “proof” could be that I sometimes eat other pizza types and not pepperoni exclusively.
Whether or not pepperoni pizza is my favorite food is immaterial.
-
In this context, lies do not mean false statements.
In any context lies =/= false statements. Lots of people make false statements all the time, but it doesn't mean they're liars. People in say things about themselves, their own experiences, and their own personalities, and I know are false but they definitely believe they're true. Self-delusion isn't the same thing as perjury if you think you're answering honestly. And incidentally, that would even be about matters that are 100% demonstrably true or false; whether a person was "blackout drunk" doesn't seem to me something empirically demonstrable, unless there is a direct record of the person failing to recollect things they should.
-
Let’s look at this one:
Kavanaugh repeatedly claimed Ford’s accusation has been “refuted” by others who she said attended the party -- even though the other attendees have said no such thing. Kavanaugh seized on the word “refuted” when responding to Ford’s report, claiming in five instances that the three people who Ford says were at the party when Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her had “refuted” her account. That’s an obvious misrepresentation of what those people have said. They have actually all said that they don’t recall the party in question -- a major difference from saying something didn’t happen. And Ford’s friend Leland Keyser has said that although she doesn’t remember the party in question, she believes Ford is telling the truth.
The lying accusation rests on the idea of narrowly defining “refuted”. When Ford says there was this party and all her “witnesses” will back her up that this party is real, yet not a single one knows what she’s talking about, any reasonable person could understand this as contradicting Ford. She says this party occurred, nobody remembers such a party. That does refute the allegation but by torturing the definition of refute quite a bit you can establish a belief that the party only one person remembers occured and nobody else does actually happened.
Imagine if I said there was a discussion thread on this forum where LR said something outrageous (I dunno what, but something really crazy that would truly stand out). I say you, DW, and Seriati all participated in it. I can’t link it, I can’t tell you when it happened, nobody can find it no matter how hard they search, and you all 3 explicitly deny participating in such an outrageous thread. Would a reasonable person assume my claim must be true? None of you explicitly say that thread did not exist, the logic being applied in Kavanaugh’s case would say you did not explicitly refute my claim with the words “ that thread doesn’t exist” and the idea my claim is refuted is a lie.
-
Fenring's touching on a good point. Being wrong about a statement of fact is not the same thing as lying, and it's also not a legitimate basis for a perjury claim.
For example, I don't believe Feinstein lying when she made this statement during in her questioning of Kavanaugh: "In the 1950s and 60s, the two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That’s according to the Guttmacher Institute."
She was grossly in error. The actual number of deaths was between 200 and 300. What she cited was an estimate for the total number of illegal abortions.
If she had made that statement under oath, it would not be perjury, provided she didn't have an intent to deceive.
That's the whole complaint about perjury traps. They're designed to criminalize legitimate error.
-
Yeah but, in the current political climate, there is no allowance for legitimate error. None. The definition of lie has been twisted so much that if you make an honest, legitimate, mistake, even though you 100% believed it was true, you will be branded a liar by your political opponents.
If you back up and admit you had it wrong, now you’re forever branded an admitted liar. Furthermore, from now on everything you say your opponents disagree with will be called a lie since you are, after all, an admitted liar. See Blumenthal’s statement to Kavanaugh about small lies for a recent example.
If I even change my mind, saying I now prefer sausage pizza and it’s my new favorite, my prior claim of pepperoni pizza being my favorite would be a lie or my new favorite would be the lie. Either way, I’d be branded a liar by political opponents.
-
Given that assessment of the current climate, and the proficiency with witch he dodged questions, one would think it a trivial task to avoid making such mistakes... Not like he risked looking even more like he had something to hide. ::)
Particularly for one aware of conspiracy of evil forces plotting against him.
-
Given that assessment of the current climate, and the proficiency with witch he dodged questions, one would think it a trivial task to avoid making such mistakes... Not like he risked looking even more like he had something to hide. ::)
With an army of lawyers arrayed against you to help formulate questions along with hours and hours of grilling by people experienced in laying traps like this and literally over a thousand written responses, it would be far from trivial to avoid such mistakes.
I would say the claim he dodged answering questions is not entirely accurate. He was more likely dodging traps designed to trip him up.
-
How such traps work:
If I even change my mind, saying I now prefer sausage pizza and it’s my new favorite, my prior claim of pepperoni pizza being my favorite would be a lie or my new favorite would be the lie. Either way, I’d be branded a liar by political opponents.
But then, if I said I’d never had a sausage pizza before. In the 3 months since I claimed pepperoni my favorite, I finally had my first sausage pizza and realized I’d been missing out and it became my new favorite. The new claim would be that someone that had a type pizza as a favorite food not trying sausage pizza any time in the last 35 years must be lying, it defies logic. Was I lying then or am I lying now would be the catchphrase.
But if it’s accepted as true, then it’s likely the claim of sausage pizza as a favorite would be cast as a lie because there are millions of combinations of pizza and I could not have tried them all. If questioned about trying all possible combinations came at me, I wouldn’t want to admit that I hadn’t tried them all because I may, at any moment, try something new and change my favorite again! It cannot possibly be said that sausage pizza is my favorite since, by my own admission, I have not tried all pizzas and may try a new one any day that replaces sausage as my favorite. That’s the trap
-
Thank God they avoided asking him about his favorite beer then. ::)
-
Thank God they avoided asking him about his favorite beer then. ::)
During Kavanaugh's testimony, I told my wife and daughter who were watching a fair chunk of the hearing with me that there is no way "I like beers" wasn't going to be a meme.
-
I guess what I find dubious is this line of thinking:
Question: Did you sexually assault this person?
Kavanaugh: No.
Q: So you have no memory of doing anything like this?
K: Correct.
Q: Is it possible you did do something like this but have no memory of it?
K: Uh, no?
Q: But wait! You say it's literally impossible that you could lose memories of an event?
K: Well, uh...not exactly.
Q: So you're saying it is possible you sexually assaulted this person?
K: No!
Q: So now you admit that you either lied about it being impossible, or you're saying it's impossible to lack memory of an event?
K: What?
Q: Do you deny that a memory lapse is theoretically possible?
K: I suppose not.
Q: So we have proven that the accused cannot conclusively deny having committed sexual assault.
K: But I don't have memory loss, and certainly not about such an event.
Q: So you're saying you remember literally everything you've ever done?
K: Uh...not exactly.
Q: So what you're now saying is that you can't be sure what you remember and what you can't. Is that right?
K: No!
Q: It would appear that the accused is trying to avoid the issue of what he does and doesn't remember.
K: But I already said I'd remember something like this, and I have no memory of it.
Q: Which is basically admitting you've lost the memory of it, and also proving you lied before about never having memory loss.
K: I give up. Just put me away already so I can go to sleep.
My scene is a bit farcical but this is the sort of equivocation that can happen when reality is discarded in favor of winning arguments meant to make things look a certain way.
ETA - I always remember Hitchcock's greatest fear in life, being accused of something he never did and being unable to prove he was innocent.
-
Even if it could be proved that Kavanaugh lied it will be labeled miss remembering and not a lie so not perjury.
What Ford allegations put forward was not to prove Kavanaugh guilty but to put in question his character.
Kavanaugh missed a opportunity all he needed to do was stay calm and answer questions clearly and concisely. He ought to have acted like a Judge.
By focusing on trying to prove the allegations in a he said she said, the left failed though they did get him to reveal his character. They failed again thinking that Character matters anymore.
Its all a joke. Trump makes fun of Ford at a rally and then the WH claims he was only stating the facts a as if everyone doesn't know that is a lie. Everyone. But the base will pretend to believe it. of the 10 or so statements maybe one or two was kind of true so that makes it ok , truthful hyperbole at its best. The base will defend it, love it, until the time comes when the shoe is on the other foot the damage done.
The base is playing the fool and Trump despises them for being so stupid as to believe him
-
What if Kavanaugh has never actually been in the same room as Ford? Never been in the same house, never at the same party, never even knew she existed? What if it's all made up?
Where does that leave any lies or inaccuracies in Kavanaugh's statements if none of it would have happened without the first lie from Ford? If she is the one lying should the Democrats who orchestrated this evil scheme based on lies be rewarded by their plot being effective and Kavanaugh not getting the Supreme Court seat?
Anyway, that's where the Republicans are coming from, assuming at this point that Ford is lying through her teeth. Or maybe not even assuming, at least in their minds, but wholly convinced of it. From that point of view, Trump isn't mocking a sexual assault survivor, he is calling out a person who bears false witness against their neighbor.
-
I'm not sure Ford knowingly lied about being assaulted. She could have changed an existing memory by convincing herself it was Kavanaugh after the fact. On the other hand, based on her demeanor, I'm not sure she's all there either.
I find it very, very troubling that the only public speaking I've seen of her is her testimony, in which she seemed a bit off. Why have there been no additional interviews, or press questions. I suspect that she wouldn't hold up on repeated scrutiny and her lawyers know it (but that's just speculation). Her lawyers are clearly playing games, they have not released any of the polygraph background (required to interpret it), they haven't released the medical records that she is citing as proof and corroboration, and they've pretty much tried to play every scenario for a delay of the hearing (not clear what that has to do with representing their clients' legal interests).
Honestly, the longer she speaks through her lawyers and the more she plays to obstruct the less credible I find her testimony. Wouldn't a victim already have released the background to the polygraph if it really helped her case? The only other options are it doesn't help, or it's being "held" as a tactic - but the only benefits to such a tactic are political delays not any justice.
I'll even be more specific. MD has flat out said they'd investigate if she filed charges. She still has not done so. Why not?
-
OK. Here we are. 7 days later.
Have we found someone who says they drove Ford to or from the party/gathering?
Have we found Timmy’s house? Does it match discrptions given by Ford?
Did anybody infiltrate the dealers or find the suppliers?
No?
Know where u goin?
Nowheah.
-
From that point of view, Trump isn't mocking a sexual assault survivor, he is calling out a person who bears false witness against their neighbor.
I have to call BS on that. Trump could have made his point without the mocking tone, exaggeration or hyperbola. Instead he went on a ramble where most of his statements were false - (Ford did recount details that trump insinuated that she couldn't remember.) It was nothing but a performance calculated to energize his base and get them out to vote. It was ugly and his followers should demand better.
Kavanaugh showed his character in his response to the allegations.
-
It was nothing but a performance calculated to energize his base and get them out to vote. It was ugly and his followers should demand better.
I call BS. Trump doesn't do this stuff out of calculation. He just reacts and rants involuntarily. Kind of like the Incredible Hulk, he gets mad and it just sort of happens.
-
Kavanaugh showed his character in his response to the allegations.
Kavanaugh showed his character by decades of public service and good citizenship.
Getting angry at a room full of politicians that are impugning your character as a tactic is a reasonable and good thing. Are you really implying that outrage at a false accusation is bad "character"?
-
I believe the normal response for people whose character is under attack in hearings is somewhere between humble apology and eyeroll smirk, not angry badger.
-
It is a normal response, however as a judge I would have thought he was smarter then that and assume he has had a lot of practice at appearing natural even when hearing difficult things.
-
I call BS. Trump doesn't do this stuff out of calculation
Trump repeats what works, he knows exactly how to fire up his base. Not to realize this and hold him accountable accordingly is the Lefts biggest mistake in finding a way to counter him
-
It is a normal response, however as a judge I would have thought he was smarter then that and assume he has had a lot of practice at appearing natural even when hearing difficult things.
And if he had done so, instead of hearing people question his character, they'd be going around claiming his demeanor and lack of passion proved he did it. You know, cause any normal person would have been outraged.
I really can't find it in me, to criticize someone for defending themselves, against people who were acting horridly (ie the Senators sitting in the room). I mean, do you think Corey Booker comported himself with the dignity due the office of a Senator? He deliberately quoted emails in misleading ways to try and create negative spin, he deliberately quoted things that were not in the public record and tried to imply they were worse than they were, and then he deliberately tried to violate Senate rules and release confidential documents. He was frequently belligerent as well. We all know there will be no consequences to him, or to any of the other poorly behaved Dems.
-
the whole situation is absurd and all the senators from both parties should be ashamed. The process is absurd. Why even have a confirmation hearings when you have the WH and Senate.
Maybe your right and it was a no win with regards to how Kavanaugh resounded... so he might as wel have l responded in less... odd, manner. Just my opinion. He had time to prepare and that was what he came up with?
The end was always insured so he could have decided to maintain his dignity. Those facial expressions and comments about beer will follow him forever.
I know, unproven accusations, odd facial expressions and drinking to much as in collage does not disqualify him for the job so it was all about nothing.
-
If Ford should be believed then why not Swetnick too? There's no way we should have a person on the Supreme Court who said nothing while under-aged girls were drugged and gang raped. From all the protests we see by women, women are to be believed when they accuse men of sexual assault but I notice they don't seem to be making a big case out of the Setnick situation. I wonder why is that? There's as much evidence for one as the other as Swetnick has signed an affidavit detailing what happened under penalty of perjury.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as-julie-swetnick.html
Could it be that was just a bridge too far? That almost makes it seem like the Ford allegations were contrived to be more believable by not being quite so over the top. However, women must be believed so we have to believe them both. Or... maybe neither. Of course it could be one but not the other even if that's not quite the policy of the Democrats right now.
-
I’d like to give credit to Harry Reid and the Democrats for making today possible. 8)
-
There is a difference between outrage and petulence.
-
It was nothing but a performance calculated to energize his base and get them out to vote. It was ugly and his followers should demand better.
I call BS. Trump doesn't do this stuff out of calculation. He just reacts and rants involuntarily. Kind of like the Incredible Hulk, he gets mad and it just sort of happens.
The consistently effective way he does this, and that it works, should disabuse you of that notion. Watch now how Graham and other Republicans begin to utilize this tactic to similar effect. Finally fighting back is a calculated tactic and it’s working.
Many of you will *hate* living by your own rules now. I’m not a fan of where this goes but the rules are the rules.
-
Looks like Avenatti is in hot water, with NBC and possibly the Justice Department for his antics in the Kavanaugh hearings circus.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596
-
Has anyone checked on Ford? I don’t think she’s been seen for a few weeks, she’s disappeared. Man, she may be the ultimate example of being used and discarded once her utility was gone.
-
Because you would think someone in her position wants to stay in the spotlight? :o
-
My read on Ford is that she authentically felt she had to come forward even though she did not want to be in the spotlight.
She may have been used by all involved however I suspect for her it was just something she had to do in order to be true to herself.
I would not have done it but I'm a coward.. or realist. Nothing she did was going to change anything... yep I'm a coward
-
Because you would think someone in her position wants to stay in the spotlight? :o
Because She wanted specifically to stay out of the spotlight. She asked for anonymity. But that wasn’t useful so Feinstein forced her into it, usiung her up and throwing her away when Ford proved no longer useful.
My guess is that most women would never want to be in that spotlight. Moral of the story, don’t trust democrats.
-
Karma can be a bitch. 8)
Attorneys representing the interests of President Trump in the case of Gifford v. Trump previously won a dismissal of all claims against Mr. Trump. As a consequence the court ordered the plaintiff “Stormy Daniels” and her creepy porn lawyer, Michael Avenatti, to reimburse Donald Trump’s legal team for all expenses incurred during their defense of the frivolous lawsuit.
The lawyers representing Mr. Trump filed a motion with the court and now submit a claim for $341,559.50 for legal costs incurred (full pdf below). The court will also likely impose monetary sanctions upon CPL Avenatti.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/
"One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because one lady lied and now admits it doesn't mean that he didn't rape a bunch of other women.
-
"One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court."
That seems mistaken. There was a letter sent to the committee by someone else anonymously. When the anonymous author failed to step forward, she claimed that she had was the 'Jane Doe' who sent the letter. We have no idea if the letter itself was made up, only that it didn't originate with her. I don't think that she provided a 'lurid tale of backseat car rape' (I can't find any source that suggests she did) - rather there was one in the letter sent to the committee; and she claimed credit for the letter - but didn't provide any other elaboration, etc.
Also she can't have committed obstruction of justice or obstruction of a criminal investigation as far as I can tell (unless there was/is an criminal investigation into Kavanaugh - it seems that the only investigation was civil). Also AFAIK she didn't lie to the FBI. She could perhaps be charged with contempt of congress.
-
LR, why do you think that is "mistaken" the woman in question, lived in Kentucky, was decades older than Kavanaugh, was a left-wing activist, admitted it wasn't her and said she claimed it was because the issue needed more attention. It was clearly a tactic to try and derail the confirmation, are you objecting to the idea that she "made it up"? Honestly, you should denounce this woman. There should be no room - at all - for lying in these processes.
I have no idea what the charge could be. It seems like everyone but Ford owes Kavanaugh an apology for this process.
-
LR, why do you think that is "mistaken" the woman in question, lived in Kentucky, was decades older than Kavanaugh, was a left-wing activist, admitted it wasn't her and said she claimed it was because the issue needed more attention.
She didn't make any accussations herself, she just falsely identified herself as the author of a letter sent to the committee. The article falsely states that she made accussations, instead she falsely took credit for someone elses accussations.
It was clearly a tactic to try and derail the confirmation, are you objecting to the idea that she "made it up"?
What she made up was her claim to be the author of a letter, sent by someone else. The accussation which she was proclaiming authorship of, we have no idea what it's provenance is. What the article was proclaiming was that she was the author of the accussations, and that she is admitting that the accussations are false. What she is actually admitting is that she isn't the author of the accussations. Those are dramatically different things.
She did indeed falsely claim authorship. But that isn't what the article was accussing her of.
Honestly, you should denounce this woman. There should be no room - at all - for lying in these processes.
Please reread what I wrote and what the paper wrote. The paper appears to dramatically have misreported the issue. I fully agree that there is no room for lying. Her false claim of authorship is reprehensible. It is also reprehensible to suggest that she did something she didn't. A false claim of authorship is quite different from filing a false claim. We have no idea if the letter that was sent to the committee was legitimate, all we know is that she isn't the author of it.
I have no idea what the charge could be.
Fair enough.
It seems like everyone but Ford owes Kavanaugh an apology for this process.
I think she is a terrible person for falsely claiming authorship and she should have whatever charges are reasonable brought against her. There doesn't seem anything to suggest that Kavanaugh is owed an apology except by this woman.
If it is shown that the actual allegations made against him were false, then those making the allegations absolutely own him an apology.
-
Proper breakdown from a more reputable outlet than the failing Washington Times (https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11)
Saying that "she made up her lurid tale" fails the most basic of fact checking. She never made up a tale of any kind, lurid or otherwise. Those details are somewhat distracting however, it does show clearly that some of those involved in making or backing accusations were entirely dishonest.
-
The Democrat’s champion for women has shown his true self: (https://www.foxnews.com/us/michael-avenatti-arrested-on-suspicion-of-domestic-violence-lapd)
Avenatti was formally charged with felony domestic violence and his bail was set at $50,000, LAPD Officer Rosario Herrera told Fox News.
Is anyone really surprised? Avenatti is actually a perfect symbol for Democrats.
-
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-appears-blame-jacob-wohl-domestic-violence-arrest-n936571
Given that Mr Wohl has engaged in such behavior previously, it is plausible that that is the case.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-burkman-jacob-wohl-mueller-sexual-misconduct-scheme-legal-implications-2018-10
Of course if Mr. Avenatti has engaged in such behavior then he should certainly be punished.
-
LR, why do you think that is "mistaken" the woman in question, lived in Kentucky, was decades older than Kavanaugh, was a left-wing activist, admitted it wasn't her and said she claimed it was because the issue needed more attention.
She didn't make any accussations herself, she just falsely identified herself as the author of a letter sent to the committee. The article falsely states that she made accussations, instead she falsely took credit for someone elses accussations.
And? I never disputed whether she wrote the letter - she didn't. Though I think you're engaging in some mental shenanigans to claim she didn't make accusations when she took credit for the letter.
It was clearly a tactic to try and derail the confirmation, are you objecting to the idea that she "made it up"?
What she made up was her claim to be the author of a letter, sent by someone else. The accussation which she was proclaiming authorship of, we have no idea what it's provenance is. What the article was proclaiming was that she was the author of the accussations, and that she is admitting that the accussations are false. What she is actually admitting is that she isn't the author of the accussations. Those are dramatically different things.
Honestly, most every article I saw was clear that she claimed authorship of a letter she did not write. That's a fact that only became evident because the Senate was able to track her down "from her unique name" which I read to mean she didn't give contact information, but rather just tried to attach a name to increase the credibility. I don't see enough of a difference in what she did to claim she didn't make an accusation.
I agree based on the fact that she didn't write the letter she's in no position to discredit the allegations. The allegations are discredited by being written on an anonymous basis in the first place, which is why she was trying to make it appear more credible.
She did indeed falsely claim authorship. But that isn't what the article was accussing her of.
Are you fixated on a single article? It was clear in the letter from the committee and in most articles that she falsely claimed to have written a letter that was already in the record.
I think she is a terrible person for falsely claiming authorship and she should have whatever charges are reasonable brought against her. There doesn't seem anything to suggest that Kavanaugh is owed an apology except by this woman.
I disagree. Most have made horrid accusations against him, even on this board people have called him a rapist, without any reasonable basis for those claims. They've lied about him. He's owed an apology.
The Senators dragged him through the mud for politics and nothing else.
-
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.
Is it false then that he told the police, "She hit me first"? If that was said, then the idea that this is somekind of false allegation has no merit.
I don't particularly like Avenatti, but he is entitled to a presumption of innocence.
-
I don't like Avenatti either, and I think Jacob Wohl is a pathetic person who would try to frame him if he thought he could, but my money right now is on Avenatti getting into some kind of altercation with a woman who is not his wife, which resulted in her being hurt in some way. He's going to mount a defense that he didn't strike her and the injury was unintentional. (Pushed her away in self defense and she fell into a door, for instance.)
Wohl is probably just trolling this time, and Avenatti is taking advantage of that for the short term cover it gives him with supporters.
Just my general feeling.
-
So on point about Avenatti coverage, and I admit I love stories that focus on measurables when they talk about media reporting. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/media-watchdogs-group-accuses-cnn-msnbc-of-downplaying-avenatti-arrest (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/media-watchdogs-group-accuses-cnn-msnbc-of-downplaying-avenatti-arrest)
Just to add some of my own context, when I first heard about the story and went to CNN's website, the only Avenatti story was at the bottom of their third column, clearly an intentional choice.
-
It isn't clear to me why it should even make national news, let alone get significant coverage. He is about as important as other celebrity gossip.
-
It wasn't clear to me why he got wall to wall coverage for representing Stormy Daniels either, other than it was a story the media wanted to sell. In any event, the media made him into a candidate for President, and that makes it far more newsworthy now that it ever should have been.
Or in other words, they have to lie in the bed they made.
-
In any event, the media made him into a candidate for President
Is this attempted humor or was this floated? :o
-
I don't know what you mean, but I've seen multiple lists of Democratic candidates for President that have him on them.
-
It wasn't clear to me why he got wall to wall coverage for representing Stormy Daniels either, other than it was a story the media wanted to sell.
A presidential candidate committing a federal election crime is fairly significant news. A lawyer committing a crime on behalf of a presidential candidate is also fairly significant news. Someone threatening violence against a woman's child to prevent her from going public about the behaviour of a presidential candidate is also significant news. A President lying about breaking the law is also significant news.
-
Of course none of that actually relates to Avenatti in any way but a pipe dream. Most of it's barely plausible, its just the story the media wanted to sell. They made him and they're stuck with him.
-
I don't know what you mean,
You answered the question. Wasn't any deeper than the text. I'd heard nothing of the sort.
I guess to be fair, it's a name I've heard of, and it doesn't end with Clinton... :P
-
In any event, the media made him into a candidate for President
Is this attempted humor or was this floated? :o
I have seen his name get floated as a possible Democratic Presidential candidate for 2020. It is that status gaining press attention now on this event.
-
In any event, the media made him into a candidate for President
Did the media make him into a candidate or were they reporting on him hinting at he might run or was it that he said if he ran he could win... I don't remember
We need to clarify what we mean when we use the word media. Was it social media, talk shows, or news (no panels, no editorial, no opinion just the news)
-
I'd say the left-wits on facebook did it. Some of them former Ornery lefties. But most of all Wasserman-Schultz and Marrissa Johnson, with the help of Vladimir Putin.
-
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.
So much for believing women. The irony of this is sublime.
-
I don't know what you mean, but I've seen multiple lists of Democratic candidates for President that have him on them.
Avenatti 2020 - Fighting to give women rights ... and if they don’t behave, lefts too.
-
That was terrible...
I laughed, but sometimes I'm a terrible person. ;D
-
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.
So much for believing women. The irony of this is sublime.
There is no irony at all, since I've never help the position we should believe all women for any and all accusations - indeed my public (and personal) position has always been that about 2% of the population are psychopaths - and women psychopaths use false accusations as a tool (revenge, as way to gain leverage in a legal dispute, as a threat etc) - and thus we can expect a reasonable percentage of accusations to be false, and we should evaluate the individual merits of the accusation and what we know of the woman's character and the man's character.
If a credible accusation is made, we can then judge it on its merits. At this time though - since we have strong evidence that republican operatives have sought to purchase false allegations against political opponents in the past, and there is no public allegation, it isn't unreasonable to wait for more information before drawing conclusions.
-
I don't think the Police would have arrested him if there weren't a credible allegation.
-
I don't think the Police would have arrested him if there weren't a credible allegation.
I mean a publicly credible allegation. We don't know who made the allegation, what the specific allegation is, etc. We know that the initial reporting is that it was his estranged wife, but she has publicly denied it. I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen, but at this point all we know is that an arrest was made and he is out on bail.
-
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.
So much for believing women. The irony of this is sublime.
There is no irony at all, since I've never help the position we should believe all women for any and all accusations - indeed my public (and personal) position has always been that about 2% of the population are psychopaths - and women psychopaths use false accusations as a tool (revenge, as way to gain leverage in a legal dispute, as a threat etc) - and thus we can expect a reasonable percentage of accusations to be false, and we should evaluate the individual merits of the accusation and what we know of the woman's character and the man's character.
If a credible accusation is made, we can then judge it on its merits.
I'll vouch for LR on this. Since my debut on Ornery he's argued the position that almost all rapes are carried out by a tiny fraction of the population and stood for due process.
-
Avenatti is alleging it is a false allegation by those acting on behalf of Jacob Wohl - the individual who conspired to have false allegations made against Mueller.
So much for believing women. The irony of this is sublime.
There is no irony at all, since I've never help the position we should believe all women for any and all accusations - indeed my public (and personal) position has always been that about 2% of the population are psychopaths - and women psychopaths use false accusations as a tool (revenge, as way to gain leverage in a legal dispute, as a threat etc) - and thus we can expect a reasonable percentage of accusations to be false, and we should evaluate the individual merits of the accusation and what we know of the woman's character and the man's character.
If a credible accusation is made, we can then judge it on its merits. At this time though - since we have strong evidence that republican operatives have sought to purchase false allegations against political opponents in the past, and there is no public allegation, it isn't unreasonable to wait for more information before drawing conclusions.
I meant for Avenatti, not you. As well as for the rest of those that insisted on destroying Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh must be laughing his ass off.
-
I doubt it. He seemed to take it far more personally than Thomas did. Expect actual revenge from that one.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/facebook-selfie-saved-man-spending-99-years-prison-crime-didnt-commit-213950742.html
"On Sept. 22, 2017, Cedar Park, Texas, resident Christopher “CJ” Precopia, 21, was working at a lumberyard when the Temple County Police Department came to arrest him. CJ’s crime: Breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s home two days prior and attacking her with a box cutter, carving an “X” onto her chest... Per ABC News, CJ’s ex-girlfriend told police that after CJ broke into her home, he “came towards her in an aggressive manner and pushed her to the ground, punched her in the face and cut her with a box cutter.”
“I could hear the slices being made,” the woman told police, according to KVUE...
...However, Erin insisted that her son couldn’t have committed this crime — because they were together on Sept. 20th, 2017, at 7:20 p.m., the time of the alleged attack. Erin had taken CJ to the Renaissance Austin Hotel for an event by the skincare line Rodan & Fields called “Men Tell All.”
“Thankfully, I do log on Facebook all the time, and I check in when I go places,” Erin, who did not return Yahoo Lifestyle’s request for comment, told KVUE. That evening, Erin had posted a selfie of her and CJ at 7:02 p.m. at the event located an hour away from the accuser’s home."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice how Ford didn't make this rookie mistake of specifying the time and place so Kavanaugh could prove his innocence.
Nevertheless, we must still believe the survivors, no matter what. He should go to prison for what he did, even if he didn't, and he definitely should never be on the Supreme Court. After all, those were very serious and credible accusations.
-
Nevertheless, we must still believe the survivors, no matter what. He should go to prison for what he did, even if he didn't, and he definitely should never be on the Supreme Court. After all, those were very serious and credible accusations.
Your little meme has grown tiresome. A vanishingly small minority of people thinks you must believe everyone no matter what. You certainly must make a good faith effort to listen to what someone has to say, and not dismiss it pre-emptively. In other words, you should investigate much as these people have done successfully, and how it has worked out successfully for the vast majority of the falsely accused.
Just about everyone has to be somewhere, and the only upside of ubiquitous cell phone records tracking your every move is that you're going to have evidence of where your phone was.
The real question is with relatively available exonerating evidence, who botched the investigation and who charged him prematurely? The jokers over at Bell County.
-
Nevertheless, we must still believe the survivors, no matter what. He should go to prison for what he did, even if he didn't, and he definitely should never be on the Supreme Court. After all, those were very serious and credible accusations.
Your little meme has grown tiresome. A vanishingly small minority of people thinks you must believe everyone no matter what. You certainly must make a good faith effort to listen to what someone has to say, and not dismiss it pre-emptively. In other words, you should investigate much as these people have done successfully, and how it has worked out successfully for the vast majority of the falsely accused.
Just about everyone has to be somewhere, and the only upside of ubiquitous cell phone records tracking your every move is that you're going to have evidence of where your phone was.
The real question is with relatively available exonerating evidence, who botched the investigation and who charged him prematurely? The jokers over at Bell County.
In this post you say the meme should be done and, that by doing exactly what you say should be done, the police botched the investigation.
-
I don't think the Police would have arrested him if there weren't a credible allegation.
I mean a publicly credible allegation. We don't know who made the allegation, what the specific allegation is, etc. We know that the initial reporting is that it was his estranged wife, but she has publicly denied it. I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen, but at this point all we know is that an arrest was made and he is out on bail.
Ok, Looks like more details are coming out. Is this "publicly credible"?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-accuser-says-he-dragged-her-left-her-marks-n938656 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-avenatti-accuser-says-he-dragged-her-left-her-marks-n938656)
-
Llyod,
yep seems fairly credible to me, though it differs significantly from the initial report. Does this lawfully qualify as domestic violence? He probably should have called the cops to evict her rather than trying to do so himself. But it doesn't sound like it could meet the definition of domestic violence in most jurisdictions.
-
In this post you say the meme should be done and, that by doing exactly what you say should be done, the police botched the investigation.
I took a minute to respond, because I was trying to decide if you were being deliberately obtuse, trying to be funny, or really unable to comprehend.
Nobody, literally nobody thinks that a jury trial should be suspended on pure testimony of an accuser.
What people mean, when they say that you should believe the women, is that you shouldn't immediately attack them and try to discredit their story. They shouldn't be disparaged for not coming forward immediately. They shouldn't have their character questioned. They shouldn't be discouraged from making a report. In other words, they should be treated exactly like everyone else reporting a crime.
If you go to report a burglary, the cops don't insinuate that you were asking for it by having nice things in your house. If you report that your accountant is embezzling from you, you aren't treated skeptically by the DA. If you report that somebody stole your car they don't ask what you were doing in that neighborhood before they list it stolen.
Yes, sometimes reports turn out to be false. If you were an accountant falsely accused, you might lose some clients while you prove your innocence. There's a redress for that, its called a civil suit.
-
What people mean, when they say that you should believe the women, is that you shouldn't immediately attack them and try to discredit their story. They shouldn't be disparaged for not coming forward immediately. They shouldn't have their character questioned. They shouldn't be discouraged from making a report. In other words, they should be treated exactly like everyone else reporting a crime.
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that this is not true ... unless the accused is a democrat.
-
> TheDrake
> Yes, sometimes reports turn out to be false. If you were an accountant falsely accused, you might lose some clients while you prove your innocence. There's a redress for that, its called a civil suit.
Why should it be treated the same as other crimes when it is totally different? And most of the time there is no possible way to prove your innocence so even if you can't be found guilty in a court of law because there isn't enough evidence you still have that hanging over your head for the rest of your life and lose relationships and your reputation forever with no way to get it back. Look at the Ford case. How does Kavanaugh prove he didn't do it? How does a civil suit redress anything when there's no way to prove he didn't do it? How does he get his reputation back when tens of millions of people still think he did it and he has no possible way to change their minds? The damage done by a false sexual assault accusation can never be undone.
-
Drake, what you say is indeed what some people believe, but if you think that that’s what the college institutional feminists mean, Then you had to of been living with your head under a rock during the entire Obama administration
-
Drake, I agree with you that should be treated like any other Cryan. But if you think the cops don’t show up on the scene of a burglary, or car theft, and start investigating the victim, then you live a very privileged and protected life
-
Insurance Fraud is a myth concocted by the insurance industry to increase my rates and lower their payouts. =P
I think the more cheeky line to use on Avenatti would be to praise the courage of his accuser in coming forward to law enforcement, knowing what machinery would be unleashed upon her after doing so. ;)
-
The felony domestic violence charges - which was the reason for the arrest - have been dropped. Referral to city attorney for determination of whether there should be misdemeanor domestic violence charges.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/22/prosecutor-declines-felony-case-avenatti-1012550
-
Drake, I agree with you that should be treated like any other Cryan. But if you think the cops don’t show up on the scene of a burglary, or car theft, and start investigating the victim, then you live a very privileged and protected life
Probably depends on the neighborhood, I'll grant you that.
-
Drake, I agree with you that should be treated like any other Cryan. But if you think the cops don’t show up on the scene of a burglary, or car theft, and start investigating the victim, then you live a very privileged and protected life
Probably depends on the neighborhood, I'll grant you that.
The truth is somewhere in the middle on this. In most cases, in particular instances where insurance money is involved, the victim is a suspect from the start. That said, they generally aren't going to tell you that you're a suspect. In many cases there is also likely to be evidence pointing towards somebody else being the suspect, and they're going to pursue those leads first, as they're typically going to be the more difficult ones to potentially find later.
But Pete is correct, even as a (presumed) victim, you're a potential suspect until circumstances demonstrate otherwise.
Basically it boils down to a dynamic and ever evolving probability matrix they either are given(studies on crime statistics), or acquire anecdotally through the course of doing their job. It is why persons with low incomes tend to also get the most "hostile attention" from law enforcement, because most criminals tend to be in that income bracket, and it doesn't help when entire ethnic/racial groups can also boast significant portions of their numbers there as well.
-
In Vegas, I called cops because my neighbor What is beating the hell out of this wife, and when the cops came they were more interested in pursuing the wife for traffic tickets
Someone broke into my trunk with a crowbar, and the Utah cop accused me of insurance fraud without even checking to see if I had comprehensive coverage.
In Richmond county GA I reported my car stolen and cops interrogated me 45 minutes to investigate if I had lent it to anyone.
It seems fairly ubiquitous to treat victims (especially male victims) as the first suspect.
-
In Vegas, I called cops because my neighbor What is beating the hell out of this wife, and when the cops came they were more interested in pursuing the wife for traffic tickets
That one could be more complicated than first glance, the biggest problem with Domestic Abuse is the person being abused often refuses to pursue charges.
It also is standard procedure the check for warrants on anybody they're having to document interactions with(outstanding traffic tickets might have triggered a warrant).
Which brings us back to the first item.
1) They arrive at a location where domestic violence has clearly been taking place.
2) The victim refuses to press charges.
3) Pursuing the warrants on the traffic tickets removes the non-cooperative party(who actually is the victim in all of this) from the house, and removes them from danger at least for a little while.
-
Here the abuser was walking down the street away from the house and they let him go, focusing on catching her. That was the focus before they even spoke to her.
Also Vegas will charge even if the victim won’t press charges
-
Pete, maybe you just don't seem trustworthy. You do have a law degree. :P
-
The felony domestic violence charges - which was the reason for the arrest - have been dropped. Referral to city attorney for determination of whether there should be misdemeanor domestic violence charges.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/22/prosecutor-declines-felony-case-avenatti-1012550
This seems an odd type of defense you're pursuing here. Prosecutors routinely decline to pursue domestic violence charges, that rarely means they are convinced that someone is actually innocent. It's a just a reflection that proving a case where the only evidence is a witness testimony where one person is going to say "I'm innocent' and it's a crap shoot whether the other will say they did it or not (without regard to whether or not they actually did it), is not an easy case to bring. Even with physical injuries, it's pretty easy for some one to recant and make up a story.
Then you're left with whether a jury will convict someone based on he said/she said (forgive the expression, the persons could be of any genders). How exactly do you get beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless there's a history you probably don't.
This is of course exactly why #metoo came about, because there is no recourse and the person that did the crime can claim their innocence was "proven," Avenatti has wasted no time on that front. Does it mean he's really innocent? No. Or more specifically, we can't know if he is or isn't. And it's ridiculous to tear one man down, Kavanaugh, and give another a pass, Avenatti.
As to why no prosecution here, I don't know a lot about the LA district attorney, but she is a Democrat and this would not remotely be an easy case to bring. There's really no political benefit to a Democrat to bring it, ergo, seems an easy call and very consistent with how these are handled in the country in a non-celebrity context.
-
I guess what I'd add on the "treat it like other crimes" angle is that it's pretty rare that other crimes involve so little evidence capable of objective analysis. Almost all evidence of DV (barring a hotel video) has to be filtered through the - generally - two parties that were in the room by themselves when it occurred.
If two people were locked in a sealed room and both came out with bruises and broken bones, is there really any way to objectively decide which was the instigator and which the defender? Wouldn't you literally, if you had to do something, have to dig into their histories? I mean if it were Ghandi and a gang member would you have an idea? Could you prove it? I think most people would be very uncomfortable with deciding to prosecute either person as the aggressor in that case, yet, that's exactly what we routinely do in DV cases. We start with the premise that the DV is real and one directional and then what?
-
Having lived in a time when men were routinely allowed to beat their wives by the authorities, I'm glad we've taken steps. I'm glad neighbors get involved more than they used to. Domestic violence is rarely a one-time thing, and usually, there is a pattern. There certainly was when my father used to knock my mom around the house.
It is a tricky situation. You don't want to leave the combatants in the house to start up again. You don't want to leave someone vulnerable. Then there's the even more confusing situation of same-sex domestic violence. There you don't even have a presumptive "must have been the guy" crutch.
The best defense against public accusations is probably character support from previous partners. Violent people don't generally just use force against a single person. The other would be to end a relationship or seek counseling if you're arguing so bitterly that it could lead to violence by either party - or lead to a false accusation to ruin your life.
-
TheDrake, I agree with you, there usually is a history and it's important and laudable that we have made it possible for those situations to be redressed, even if it is still difficult.
What's troubling about the two cases in this thread is that there really isn't a history. Kavanaugh, is a one off accusation from "sometime" in the 80's with holes left and right in the story. Avenatti is a one time accusation against a highly public person that seems to be inconsistent with his own history (though his wife has at times made clear he was mentally/emotionally abusive, she drew the line at physical). In both cases, politics is pushing the story far far harder than it otherwise would have been pushed.
Honestly, I have little empathy for Avenatti, I know the type of lawyer he seems to be, and I've never respected their abusive style. It makes me suspect that it carries over into other parts of his life. It's a true type A style. And it's exactly the type of personality that led him to try and crucify Kavanaugh, and I suspect to not look too closely into the accusations that his client's brought (which will never be pinned on him by any court). And its the exact same personality that will proclaim his own innocence even if there was objective proof, utterly convinced that he can fight off any claim in court. Just the emotional/mental abuse ought to be disqualifying for political office, but we still have vestiges of the old system and only physical abuse will cut it (or in Ellison's case still be ignored).
Kavanaugh on the other hand, really did lead the kind of life you are referring to, with the support of women that have known him. Still did him little good when the media and the left decided to try and take him down. He was really only saved because he was such an over achieving dork that he saved day by day calendars from the 80's. He literally did the impossible and provided an alibi for "the early 80s," without which he almost certainly would have gone down.
-
Neil deGrasse Tyson is up next. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/02/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-patheos-allegations/index.html)
Astrophysicist and author Neil deGrasse Tyson has denied allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by three women.
Last month, three women told Patheos, a religion and spirituality website, that Tyson harassed them and made inappropriate sexual advances as early as 1984 and in recent years.
The 1984 case is a little beyond “inappropriate”:A third woman, Tchiya Amet, alleges Tyson drugged and raped her in 1984 while they were graduate students at the University of Texas at Austin.
She recalled blacking out after Tyson gave her a drink and waking up naked on his bed.
She filed a police report years later, the website reported, and has written multiple posts about the incident since 2014.
Tyson denies all this, of course. But since we must believe all accusers, Tyson is guilty.
-
For those interested,
here is a description of the allegations at the patheos site,
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/two-more-women-accuse-neil-degrasse-tyson-of-sexual-misconduct/
Here is Tyson's response,
https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/
His responses and descriptions of events also seem perfectly reasonable and plausible and don't seem to be terribly different factually from the allegations but quite different in terms of perspective.
Hopefully an investigation will clarify the truth of the matter.
-
Wait for an investigation? What about believe all women? Must be nice to be a member of the bien pensant, being more equal than others.
-
Wait for an investigation? What about believe all women? Must be nice to be a member of the bien pensant, being more equal than others.
"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault. For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted. So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.
Also I've always held consistent opinions - that some people misremember/misinterpret events and people and our memories readily conflate things and can even adopt others memories or stories (or even recollections of fictional accounts) as our own. Thus individuals are frequently not lying, but their beliefs are mistaken. Also I've consistently held that a small subset of individuals are psychopaths who will make false accusations for their own reasons (revenge or advancement are common, though sometimes for entertainment).
-
But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.
That's where the believe all women comes into play. There is nothing more than Ford's word to go on and yet they are convinced he is guilty. Even now.
-
But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.
Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached. Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.
That's where the believe all women comes into play. There is nothing more than Ford's word to go on and yet they are convinced he is guilty. Even now.
His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.
-
If that's enough to convict, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, then no man is safe no matter how innocent he is. There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years. At least he actually kissed his accuser, though it was consensual and there was no sex. I highly doubt Kavanaugh ever touched Ford or was ever in the same house as her. Without her false accusations none of the other stuff would ever have come into play at all. It's all fruit from the poisoned tree. Needless to say I didn't find his so called lies to be lies at all anyway. Just his version of the truth. Rashoman style. Ford on the other hand seemed to be completely making all of it up. Just my impression based on the evidence and lack of it. I suppose I could be wrong. But the point is if Ford can be believed, anyone can. We'll be hard pressed to find a woman making accusations with less evidence than Ford.
-
There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years.
I wonder what you would do if you didn't have Brian Banks to trot out. Let's not forget that he wasn't convicted, he took a plea deal. So discussion about convictions don't apply. We don't know what a jury would have done. You're also making an assumption that her accusations are false, when none of us know what happened based on the flimsy evidence.
Even being falsely accused doesn't remotely allow you to lie under oath.
You can believe Ford and also believe Kavanaugh. You can believe that she was telling the truth as she remembered it. "Believe the women" is as much about not scourging them as it is about determining facts. Or you could turn red and start weeping at a committee hearing, apparently. That's another option. So is lying through your teeth about your drinking habits in college.
-
If that's enough to convict, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, then no man is safe no matter how innocent he is.
He was being interviewed to become a Supreme Court justice - lying under oath is generally considered disqualifying for that job, so when you do so - it is strongly suggestive that you are trying to cover up something more serious. Almost no innocent men would lie under oath, so I'm not sure why you think 'no man is safe'.
There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years. At least he actually kissed his accuser, though it was consensual and there was no sex.
Brian Banks pled guilty. We have no idea how evidence compares, since the accussations against Kavanauagh weren't investigated to any significant degree (namely neither Ford, nor Kavanaugh were interviewed by police/FBI)
I highly doubt Kavanaugh ever touched Ford or was ever in the same house as her.
You seem to have no reasonable basis for your doubt. There is no evidence of maliciousness or other motivation for Ford to make the accussation, there is nothing to imply psychopathy which is almost universal in false accussations. She made it quitely and only went public on it when forced to.
Without her false accusations none of the other stuff would ever have come into play at all.
Actually he had purjured himself in seperate testimony in his 2004 and 2006 hearings regarding stolen documents.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html
He seems to have further perjured himself during his recent hearings.
It's all fruit from the poisoned tree. Needless to say I didn't find his so called lies to be lies at all anyway. Just his version of the truth.
He pretty unequivocally committed perjury. It isn't something subject to opinion.
Ford on the other hand seemed to be completely making all of it up.
There seems no basis for this belief - she seems to completely and sincerely belive her testimony.
Just my impression based on the evidence and lack of it. I suppose I could be wrong.
You almost certainly are. Ford's testimony seems utterly sincere. She could be confused, mistaken etc, all of the things that cause memory to be in error, but there is no rational basis to think she is lying.
But the point is if Ford can be believed, anyone can. We'll be hard pressed to find a woman making accusations with less evidence than Ford.
We actually have a lack of investigation, we don't know if there is a lack of evidence because the FBI was directed to avoid interviewing the two most important witnesses and further to avoid investigating. If he was actually believed innocent by Republicans and that Ford were lying they would have insisted that Ford and Kavanaugh be interviewed. To me this is pretty indicative that Republicans believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself and believe that Ford is telling the truth.
-
"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault.
Police should investigate all allegations, but they may attune their efforts to credibility reasonably. No one in law enforcement should default to believing allegations, that's literally not their job.
Implying fault is an interesting one. In fairness, we routinely and appropriately imply fault in innumerable other criminal contexts. We frequently tell those that get beat up that they deserved it, sometimes accurately. We routinely tell those who have been robbed that they were foolish to be were they were, or not to take reasonable precautions (like a bike lock).
In the context of sexual assault though we're playing against a history where the old rule was to attribute unreasonable blame. "You must have led him on by letting him see your ankles" "You must have wanted it" So much so that we're over correcting by even ruling out reasonable claims of acting stupid. It's true no one deserves to be the victim of a crime, but that doesn't mean that acting stupidly is not still stupid. Putting oneself into a place to be vulnerable means living with consequences that could have sometimes been avoided.
As a pyschological matter, you're probably right, we shouldn't be heaping the blame on any victim of a crime, no matter whether they made themselves vulnerable or not. They know they made themselves vulnerable and their going to have that self doubt as part of that forever.
But what absolutely shouldn't be doing is treating making yourself vulnerable as an excuse for the person who took advantage, and I think that's were sexual assault really differed historically.
For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted. So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.
I think there's a completely reasonable basis to believe that the request for delay on Kavanaugh had nothing to do with a need for a proper investigation. In fact I think it's really hard to claim that the request for delay was even marginally connected to a need to investigate.
I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges, nor have the other women, and it doesn't appear as if any actual investigations have been continued by any police or investigative body (that won't stop the Democratic House from doing so in the new year, but the idea that there is any legitimate investigation to be done is pretty much a fail).
But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.
Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached. Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.
Last time you made this claim you linked to a pretty unconvincing web site, can you give some insight into what perjury you think has been demonstrated?
Perjury is being completely abused with people not understanding that it was intended to apply to knowing falsehoods. Most everything I've seen cited to on this topic isn't even clearly untrue.
His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.
Again frequent? In what world do you have evidence of frequent deception and lies?
-
I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges
Probably because at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred, the crime he is accused of was considered a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 1 year.
The charge of attempted rape was considered a misdemeanor at the time. As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html
Regarding perjury, I provided a link for his past perjuries. You may find his perjuries during the recent hearing debatable, but we have email directly contradicting his previous perjuries during testimony of his prior confirmation hearings.
-
I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges
Probably because at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred, the crime he is accused of was considered a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 1 year.
Your link is the only one I've seen that says that attempted rape was a misdemeanor (and I note it says there was a felony version that could have been charged without a SOL at the time). Groping was a misdemeanor with a one year SOL, I suspect that the source conflated the two.
Regarding perjury, I provided a link for his past perjuries. You may find his perjuries during the recent hearing debatable, but we have email directly contradicting his previous perjuries during testimony of his prior confirmation hearings.
And several of us went to the link you provided and found it pretty weak sauce. That's what prompted me to ask specifically what testimony you found to be directly contradictory. I still ask, as you seem absolutely convinced by something, I'd like to know what it is. I haven't found any of it to be even arguably a basis for a perjury claim.
-
Seriati,
the opinion that it would have fallen under a misdemeanor was the opinion of the ex-chief prosecutor - he seems likely to have the most informed opinion on the law at the time.
Regarding Kavanaugh and perjury,
this is the link I was refering to.
For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”
In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.
Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html
To me that seems a slam dunk on perjury. I've no idea how you could consider it 'weak sauce'.
His recent testimony it would be harder to prove it is perjury, but I don't think there it can be reasonably believed that he didn't do so. If you are talking about the difficult of building a case for his recent perjury, I'd agree it would be challenging. My characterization as frequently deceptive or lying though I think is a perfectly fair characterization.
-
Seriati,
the opinion that it would have fallen under a misdemeanor was the opinion of the ex-chief prosecutor - he seems likely to have the most informed opinion on the law at the time.
It was a misdemeanor because groping is a misdemeanor. My point is that they conflated the two offenses (you know the one her claims would have supported factually, and the one that people "wanted to be true).
Regarding Kavanaugh and perjury,
this is the link I was refering to.
For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”
And do you have evidence that any of those documents appeared to have been drafted or prepared by such persons?
Were they signed, or on letterhead? Seriously, the basic threshold for claiming that was a perjured answer requires that you show he received documents that have evidence they were so drafted. By the most critical accounts (including yours) they are "implied" to be evidence of Democratic drafting because of content (or do you see where your author states they were labelled as such?). However, content could have been compiled in any number of ways, including by say the operative summarizing stolen documents and Kavanaugh's answer would have been true.
The source may have recognized the documents but that means little since it's widely acknowledged the staffer in question did steal them. If they were not identifiable by others that's not perjury.
Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats.
Emphasis added. Did the emails show documents labled as such? Or did they show analysis.
I get wanting to claim he "must have known" but that is not the standard for claming perjury.
To me that seems a slam dunk on perjury. I've no idea how you could consider it 'weak sauce'.
Because the facts have already been investigated and criminal charges applied? Or maybe because if the claim was a slam dunk it would have been written to include allegations that the documents were labled in a manner that proves the case?
Again, it's premised on "he must have known" the source of the information but that's a logical leap in a town where both sides routinely have ad hoc leaks to each other, where I guarantee every politician and staffer has seen documents whose source could only have been the other side and would answer the question the same way Kavanaugh did. Unless they were labled or you can show he had actual knowledge of the source, it's weak sauce to claim those are perjury.
His recent testimony it would be harder to prove it is perjury, but I don't think there it can be reasonably believed that he didn't do so. If you are talking about the difficult of building a case for his recent perjury, I'd agree it would be challenging. My characterization as frequently deceptive or lying though I think is a perfectly fair characterization.
Well it's "fair" as an opinion I grant. You don't have to believe him. It's however a far cry from asserting that he clearly perjured himself.
For a source from the other side on the same controversy, emphasis added https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-claims-totally-baseless/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-claims-totally-baseless/)
During Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony in 2004, Orrin Hatch asked him if he had received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh said no. In 2006, Ted Kennedy asked him about the same documents, and Kavanaugh issued another denial, saying, “I don’t know what the universe of memos might be, but I do know that I never received any memos, was not aware of any such memos.”
At the same time, however, Kavanaugh was careful to say that he might have unknowingly seen information “derived” from the memos. So, to be clear, to demonstrate perjury the Democrats would have to show clearly and unequivocally that Kavanaugh didn’t just see information taken from the memos but that he clearly and knowingly viewed the actual memos themselves.
Whether you think he saw the information, and knew its source, is not enough for a perjury claim.
While hedging that he doesn’t know what the “universe of memos might be,” he also says, “I never received any memos.” There is not a single email or document showing that he actually received a stolen memo, much less that he did so knowingly.
-
Seriati,
for a 'more likely than not' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard - I think 90% of the time he would lose.
So I think an amazing lawyer might be rarely able to convince a jury that he didn't purjure himself 'beyond a reasonable' doubt upon occassion with the right jury.
I don't think we as the public should view it as anything other than he clearly purjured himself.
There is quite a difference between 'a skilled lawyer might be able to establish reasonable doubt' - and it being reasonable on the face of it to deny he perjured himself.
-
I guess it all boils down to the definition of "is" at the end of the day.
-
Seriati,
for a 'more likely than not' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
More likely than not he lied? If he didn't see a memo with democratic labelling he didn't lie. Go back and look at what he said.
There's 100% chance he saw materials that originated from the stolen server. It's a different question as to whether he knew he saw stolen materials, and the question of provability is whether any of the materials that can be shown he saw where clearly identifiable to a neutral observer as stolen materials.
As far as I can tell from the record, the actual evidence fails to show he received materials that were identifiably stolen.
This brings us back to you believing he's guilty - without clear evidence.
On these facts, there is no question it fails beyond the shadow of a doubt. Fails preponderance of the evidence, or that it even even meets clear and convincing. I think you are conflating the issue of whether he saw information that was stolen - which he admitted was possible - with whether he saw indentifiable materials - for which you have his email records and there is still apparently no evidence. Unless you believe that the link I provided represents lies, and you can explain why the link you provided never directly states that the materials he recieved would have been identifiable as stolen to a third party, I'm finding it hard to see how you got to an opposite conclusion?
So I think an amazing lawyer might be rarely able to convince a jury that he didn't purjure himself 'beyond a reasonable' doubt upon occassion with the right jury.
A prosecutor may be able to get a jury to ignore the evidence and convict on an impression that he's a bad guy, but if you used the same standard you applied with Clinton then there's no question he's not perjured himself. If you use a standard of what can be proven, he didn't perjure himself. You only get to a perjury claim when you apply analysis and decide he must have known.
In any event, there's nothing about this that rises to the level of certainty you are expressing, and it wouldn't take a skilled lawyer to show that, it would take a skilled and charming prosecutor to get there.
-
Seriati,
feel free to believe what you will. I really can't understand how you can reconcile your beliefs with the facts. I've offered up evidence that he has committed multiple acts of perjury, you don't agree - that is fine - neither of our opinions matter much ultimately, and I'm certainly not going to convince you to change your opinion.
-
Fair enough. In my view you haven't offered any evidence that what he said wasn't true, again the test is not whether he saw information from the stolen files, it's whether his actual statements were false. Take a look at the link I provided and his actual quotes. At the very least, can you agree that your assesments of 100%, 100% and 90% are far overstating the case?