Kavanaugh hearing

[laklak]

I think they'll certainly try to shove him down the Dems' collective throat. There's a lot of rumbles from the GOP rank and file, either confirm him, quickly, or face a mid-term revolt. The hearings are seen as a showdown, Good Honest Christian 'Murika against the Socialist Gender Fluid SJWs.

[Cunt]

Usually when someone claims the 'moral high ground', I start getting suspicious...probably my upbringing.

[Forty Two]

I think there's a difference between Ms Blasey Ford being championed for coming forward and people championing her allegations. People actually have been making excuses for this kind of behaviour based on age, hormones, alcohol, and the decades between then and now...

I'm sure there are. I've seen people posting stuff on social media doing just that? So what? Whenever there is an issue of public importance, assholes say things. And, there is even debate as to who is being the asshole and who isn't. That happens on every issue of public importance.

What does that matter? We are still left with the question of whether the accused behavior actually happened and whether Kavanaugh did it. The fact that people might say "pshaw! BlaseyFord is a politically motivated bullshit artist!" or words to that effect, doesn't mean that what she said is more likely true.

“We’re talking about a 17-year-old boy in high school with testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn’t done this in high school. Please, I would like to know.” -- Gina Sosa, CNN

"There was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Really?" -- Irina Vilareño, CNN

"The thing happened—if it happened—an awfully long time ago, back in Ronald Reagan’s time, when the actors in the drama were minors and (the boys, anyway) under the blurring influence of alcohol and adolescent hormones. No clothes were removed, and no sexual penetration occurred. The sin, if there was one, was not one of those that Catholic theology calls peccata clamantia—sins that cry to heaven for vengeance." -- Lance Morrow, Wall Street Journal

"“If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.” — Whitehouse lawyer, Politico

I'm curious why you have to keep repeating the fact that some people lie, and some people lie about things like historical sexual abuse...

One, opinions vary, and among those opinions varying are opinions regarding the seriousness of an allegation, even assuming the allegation is true. Things differ in seriousness, and cases can be made as to whether someone thinks behavior X is the same degree as behavior Y. And, people have, and are entitled to, their own opinion as to how much trauma or injury is reasonable under a given set of circumstances. But as I've stated, none of that is coming from anyone on the Senate committee. These are opinions of members of the public.

The person saying that if someone can be brought down by allegations like this - he's not talking about this is proven allegations, but as unsubstantiated allegations. Yes, indeed, it's not unreasonable to say that if a person on the slate for SCOTUS can be brought down by someone saying that 36 years ago X jumped on top of me and grabbed my tits and tried to pull my shirt off, and we don't need corroboration for it, then there is a huge danger that any candidate will be brought down by similar allegations. What of the next candidate, perhaps chosen by a Democrat President, who is accused by a staunch conservative Republican, represented by Jay Sekulow, paid for by the Koch Brothers, who says that the Democrat appointee did something similar to what Kavanaugh is accused of - no evidence. Just an accusation. What do we do with it? What would you be wanting to see in order to believe the accuser? And, if the event happened 36 years earlier, when those involved were teenagers, and the career was blameless ever since, wouldn't you be wondering the same things being expressed?

It has often been stated that keeping the matter to oneself is consistent with what some women do when they've had an incident like this happen. I'm not denying that. However, it is also true that not saying anything about an incident for 30+years is also consistent with that incident not happening.

You imply that there's more to this than just acknowledgement of the fact that 'some people lie'. You imple a kind of equivalence between lying about being a victim of historical sexual abuse and lying about being a victim of history sexual abuse - that given the "30+years" it's just as likely to be a lie as not. When it comes to allegations of historical sexual abuse what proportion of accusers do you think are actually liars?

Neither one of us knows how "likely" it is for one person to lie. There might be some stats out there to show the rate of lying among people who make accusations of sexual abuse, but that says nothing about the likelihood of Ms. Blasey Ford lying. It's not relevant whether 50% of women lie, or whether 1% of women lie. There is no way to know if Ms. Blasey Ford is lying, other than to view the objective evidence. Further, again, it's only a question of whether a person might be lying. They can be mistaken, or have mistaken recollections. That's as true in these circumstances as any other, for men and women. Kavanaugh,too, may well be wrong about never having been to a party like what was described - and he may well have done what is alleged and he might also not be lying about denying it (because he has no recollection of it).

I don't know what proportion of accusers are actually liars. I don't know that about any crime. What proportion of general "assault and battery" accusers are actually liars? What percentage of men accusing women of domestic battery are liars? Most? Some? 5%? 50%? 10%? I don't think any of us know, or can know that percentage.

However, how would we handle an accusation by Christopher Ford against Mr. Kavanaugh, claiming that Mr. Kavanaugh assualted and battered Mr. Ford in a college bar in 1984 or 1985? Mike says the two were drunk, and Kavanaugh got upset because Mr. Ford called him a big pussy because he was still a virgin. Kavanaugh hauled off and punched him in the face and kicked him when he was down. Kavanaugh was dragged away by another friend, Mike Judge. The media contacted Mike Judge who said, I don't remember any of that happening at all ever. Mr. Kavanaugh said, I was never in a college bar like the one described, and I was never in any bar fight ever, and I did not do what Mr. Ford says I did. Mr. Ford never mentioned the fight for 30 years, and now that Mr. Kavanaugh is on the block for SCOTUS, Mr. Ford says he thinks he has an obligation to tell his story. He doesn't remember the bar, how he got there, who he was with, how he got home - he let the bar embarrassed at being beaten up, and never told a person about it. His lawyer is a Democratic operative, and Democratic donors are paying his legal bills.

What do we do relative to the confirmation process about that?

What kind of corroboration do you think might support a "30+years" allegation of sexual abuse?

People who were at the party who reported that Ms. Ford came out upset and said "Fucking that asshole Brett just tried to rape me, and I thought he was going to kill me," and then Kavanaugh came out of the room all drunk and stumbling. That would be one kind of evidence. A contemporaneous police report and a police investigation where he was interviewed. A video camera. An admission by Brett Kavanauch. Mike Judge saying "yes, Brett really did that - I knocked him off of her when I saw he wasn't just kidding around..." or something like that. Those are just examples, not requirements. Corroboration can come in many forms, and I can't list them all.

Do you think the high standards of evidence required to secure a criminal conviction are appropriate here, or do you think just having reasonable cause to believe the allegations, just enough to cast doubt on Mr Kavanaugh's denial that he didn't try and rape a 15 year old when he was 17 would suffice?

No.
I think that the Senate committee can hear all sorts of evidence that would not be admissible in a criminal trial. Hearsay evidence, for example. I do believe that if there is reasonable doubt about whether the allegation is true, that the candidate should be given the benefit of it. However, if there was enough corroboration of her story to "cast doubt on Mr. Kavanaugh's denial..." I think the degree of corroboration and the degree of doubt should be evaluated. It depends on what is being called corroboration and what kind of doubt it raises. Example: Saying that a culture of drinking and partying and such occurred at the prep school and Kavanaugh was a big drinker, is not corroboration that casts doubt on his denial. A second person who says "I was at the party - it occurred on X date, and was at my house - Kavanaugh was there, and I saw Blasey run out of the room upset and she left the house really pissed off and refused to talk to anyone - she never said what happened - we asked Brett what the hell happened, but he was too drunk and passed out." - by way of example only --- then I think you have some corroboration that casts doubt on his denial. The degree of corroboration and doubt relates to who the new witness is, and what we know about their motives, because we're again talking about 30 year old recollections. But I could definitely see how a strong witness could exist. That's not to say that's the only way there can be corroboration. You asked and I tried to give you examples.

The Senate committee rooms are not criminal courts, so what might be the appropriate standard of evidence and and level of examination for Senators to undertake?

In actual fact, it's whatever standard they decide themselves. It can be completely arbitrary, or even racist - maybe they think it's time for a native American transgender person to be on the bench - and they refuse to confirm Kavanaugh because he's a white male. They have the constitutional authority to deny their consent.

In my opinion, they ought not credit uncorroborated accusations of anything, whether it be groping at a teenage party, or tax fraud. If an accountant said that Kavanaugh told him to hide income in an account in Belize, and it occurred 20 years ago, and the accountant never reported it to the authorities and never told a soul about it until Kavanaugh was ready to be confirmed to the SCOTUS, and there are no documents or corroborating witnesses, save the testimony of one accountant who is represented by a Democratic operative and paid for by Democratic donors, I would be looking at it the same way. Nice allegation, very interesting, and if true, would be very relevant - but, I can't tell if it's true, just because someone says it is. How would you evaluate such a claim?

I accept that Ms Blasey Ford "doesn't have to be lying to be wrong", but doesn't that apply to Mr Kavanaugh's denials as well?

Unqualifiedly yes. However, denying an allegation is not the same as making an allegation. And, I don't grant him the "right to remain silent" in this forum. If the allegations were made and he said "I'm not saying anything, I rely on the presumption of innocence," I would say "not good enough." However, an assertion made without evidence my be rejected without evidence. That applies here just as much as in any other context. So, he met the allegations head on and denied them - not in wishy washy "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman" where Clinton denied having sexual intercourse while leaving himself the out that he had other types of sexual interaction with Lewinsky.... no - here he said "I never sexually assaulted ANYONE." He said "I never did what she is saying I did." He said "I was never at a partylike the one she described." That kind of thing. Absolute, unequivocal statements with no wiggle room.

I don't expect him to have evidence of something that didn't happen, or to corroborate that something that didn't happen - not under the circumstances where she doesn't specify when and where it happened. If she said it happened on X date in Joe Smith's house, we could then try to falsify or confirm the allegations. We could see if Kavanaugh had an alibi. We could see if Joe Smith confirms the party happened and Kavanaugh was in attendance, or not. We could research the date in question and see where Blasey Ford was at that time, and see if she could have been there. As it happens, there is no way to test the allegations now.

You didn't address the point about applying the same 'all people lie' statement to Mr Kavanaugh, about whether we can be assured by the same measures applied to Ms Blasey Ford that he's not a liar himself, and if we cannot then what do you think that does for his nomination? If we are to acknowledge the possibility that Ms Blasey Ford's motives are political, again, can we not apply the same kind of acknowledgements to Mr Kavanaugh's denials also?

I have addressed this point. But, I'll address it again. Men and women both lie - i.e., some men and some women lie when they say things. Kavanaugh could lie. He has that capacity, just as Blasey Ford does. I've never denied that. I don't credit his denials with any truth, nor do I have to believe them. I neither believe him, nor her.

She made an accusation that at a party at someone's house in 1982 (maybe, can't remember the year), but when she was about 15 (can't remember the year, so age might be off a bit), and don't remember who was there exactly, except certain people named who all say it did not happen or there is no recollection of any such thing happening, certain things happened. There is no evidence provided, and no corroboration. Kavanaugh met those denials equally. There is no reason to "believe" either.

The allegation is there. The denial is there. In order for a claim about reality or a phenomenon or an event to be accepted as true, we need to be able to verify or corroborate the claim. Otherwise, it's just a claim. A claim cannot be used to support itself, because that begs the question.

We cannot say Blasey Ford's allegation wins over the denial because women don't lie about this stuff. We know that's not true, and that some women do and have lied about this stuff. And, the rate of lies told in this arena is irrelevant, because you cannot conclude that Blasey Ford isn't lying simply because 75%, or 95% or 99% of other people wouldn't lie in this circumstance (and we don't have those statistics anyway). Further, she doesn't have to be lying to be wrong.

As for motive, Mr. Kavanaugh has a motive to lie, of course. He has a SCOTUS appointment in the balance. So, any denial must be viewed in that light, that if he admitted it, he wold lose the nomination for sure. So, he has a built in motive to lie. What does that mean to you? Does Blasey Ford's allegation win over his denial?

Do a thought experiment. Reverse the roles. A President you like and support, nominating a candidate you love and who has the judicial temperment and philosophy and views that you agree with 100%. And a claim of sexual assault coming from a person who is very much in the other camp, represented by an attorney who is basically an activist, and financed by a large donor from the other camp. The allegations are otherwise the same. How would you be evaluating the candidate, the 36 year old claim about teenage incidents, never mentioned before, coming right at a time this SCOTUS candidate you love is about to be confirmed...?

[Svartalf]

unfortunately.

[Forty Two]

shit... well, I still am not so sure they won't get him confirmed before the elections.

If they keep pulling shit like this, then I'm sure they will confirm him soon. https://www.mediaite.com/online/hearing ... espectful/

And,

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... sters.html They openly threaten Ted Cruz - "you are not safe - we will find you." LOL. Such dipshits. I don't even like Ted Cruz. I disagree with almost every political position he holds. He's a religious nutjob. But, come on...

And, how about folks find out who these antifa dickheads are, and hound them out of the restaurants they go to? Tell them they have no safe place to go to. Shout them down, while they're with their families. The more they do this, I think there are more and more people who will be getting ready to put these dickheads in their place.

[laklak]

Her: He did it, and those other people saw it.
Him: I didn't do it.
Other people: We didn't see it.
Bunch of uninvolved people: He's an asshole and we think he did it.
Other bunch of uninvolved people: We like him and don't believe he did it.

That's about all we have at the moment.

[Cunt]

Why not start with the beginning...what do we know about the 'kindergarten journalism' facts?
1. Who - Kavanaugh / Ford / spectators
2. What - unlawful groping/holding
3. Where - not remembered
4. When - not remembered
5. Why - political leverage against a current candidate for SCOTUS

Looks like there isn't really any clear information outside of the vague, poorly defined claim coupled with the strong support of politicians and their lawyers.

[Tero]

You forgot: He was a virgin at the time and wanted sex by any means possible before college.

[Tero]

I expect that he will be confirmed. It isn't because he deserves it that I think so, it's because his critics have failed to make a case against him.

He is corporate/Trump puppet and has no right being a judge. Make him a sheriff in some libertarian world. He has no respect for citizens and voters. They are too poor.

His belief: government has no right to regulate business.

And Obama was ripped off for one judge. Its our turn now.

[Svartalf]

good luck, but with the GOP control of congress, they can do what Obama couldn't

[Cunt]

I expect that he will be confirmed. It isn't because he deserves it that I think so, it's because his critics have failed to make a case against him.

He is corporate/Trump puppet and has no right being a judge. Make him a sheriff in some libertarian world. He has no respect for citizens and voters. They are too poor.

His belief: government has no right to regulate business.

And Obama was ripped off for one judge. Its our turn now.

If he is so horrible, why is the best the left can attack with is a vague accusation of decades-old sexual misconduct?

If they had better, they would be using it. Their lack of coherent criticism of him tells me there isn't much to criticize.

[Seabass]

You mean lack of criticism that you agree with. There's been plenty of valid criticism.

[Cunt]

Why is the largest issue this ancient claim of a misdemeanor? By 'largest', I mean it is the main criticism the media is sharing.

Of course dems hate him for not being a dem, but what are the headlines aside from the Ford accusations?

He doesn't like abortion, I get that. The issue isn't as black and white as presented by dems, I don't know if most dems get that.

[Tero]

There is no basis to exclude him by politics. The Constitution is interpreted loosely so there is a lot of power. Senators get to vote by whatever internal criteria they want. He's a gift from god like Trump!

[Cunt]

The dissenters I respect the most, are able to articulate their opponents position, to their opponents satisfaction.

I do enjoy your humour, Tero.