Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing

[Grant]

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. 

[Fenring]

I find it ridiculous that anyone (here, at least) would refer to polygraph tests as being evidence of anything. Their credibility is laughable.

[Grant]

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. 

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Crunch]

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:

...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.

[Greg Davidson]

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.

[TheDrake]

apa on polygraph

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, 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.

[TheDrake]

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

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).

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Grant]

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? 

[Wayward Son]

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.

[D.W.]

Or, my friends and I got blackout drunk occasionally at that age. 

[rightleft22]

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.   

[Wayward Son]

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 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.

[Wayward Son]

And, as FiveThirtyEight points out, we're not good at all at knowing who is lying.

[TheDeamon]

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?

[Grant]

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. 

[Seriati]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[Pete at Home]

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.

[Grant]

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

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Seriati]

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?

[TheDrake]

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.

[Fenring]

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."

[Grant]

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. 

[Grant]

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". 

[Fenring]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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. 

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?

[Fenring]

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. 

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.

[Seriati]

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. 

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[Seriati]

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

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Fenring]

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"?

[D.W.]

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.   

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".
 

[Seriati]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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, and the woman who Ford purportedly coached about polygraph tests has already denied it.

Hopefully the FBI will have a chance to investigate these claims (in the few hours they have left  ).

[rightleft22]

This whole mess is absurd

[TheDrake]

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.

[Lloyd Perna]

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

[Wayward Son]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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

[TheDeamon]

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."