Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing

[Crunch]

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. 

[Crunch]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[Grant]

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. 

[D.W.]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

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. 

[Crunch]

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.

[Fenring]

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?

[TheDeamon]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[TheDrake]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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?

[Seriati]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[TheDeamon]

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.

[Crunch]

Doxxing the republican senators so liberals could hunt them down was a low point.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Seriati]

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.

[Crunch]

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.

[Wayward Son]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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?

[Seriati]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[Grant]

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. 

[NobleHunter]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[Wayward Son]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[Wayward Son]

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... 

[Grant]

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... 

 

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. 

[Wayward Son]

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... 

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. 

[DonaldD]

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

[DonaldD]

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? 

[Mynnion]

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.

[Grant]

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.   

[Grant]

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

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? 

[Grant]

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".   

[TheDeamon]

After all, the worst-case scenario is that Kavanaugh gets appoint to SCOTUS, and is then put on trial for rape by someone... 

 

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.

[DonaldD]

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.

[Grant]

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. 

[TheDeamon]

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.

[DonaldD]

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...

[cherrypoptart]

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.”

[TheDeamon]

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.

[cherrypoptart]

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.

[Grant]

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? 

[Greg Davidson]

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).

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?

[Pete at Home]

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.