Kavanaugh hearing

[Tero]

The gang rape story definitely did not improve things for Ford. "All them kooky women are now blaming him!" There is a logic fail here, but I still don't know what the term is: distracting a legitimate claim by making several outlandish claims.

[Sean Hayden]

It's very difficult to get the bad guy Tero, especially one so smart and with the backing of so much money and smarts.

But I actually think the best approach is to conclude that you can't be certain. You avoid discrediting Ford without declaring Kavanaugh guilty. It sucks. What do you want?

[Tero]

Well there really was nothing much to be done after the two spoke in the senate. 95 made up their mind then. The confirmation dragged so long that there was not time for another candidate before Nov.

If it had been a democratic judge with the same claims against him, I would have pushed for a replacement by June. Send the FBI out to interview Ford immediately in the summer. I would have been embarrassed of loud support.

[Sean Hayden]

That's reasonable.


The dems have a lot of work to do to right what feels like a long run of bad luck at this point.

[Tero]

I could never support him as judge, as he will always put corporations and money first. He is too libertarian for a judge, a really fuzzy area for a person to operate in. Mainly they argue we don't need laws and regulations for corporations. "There is no basis for the FDA in the constitution." That sort of thing.

[Joe]

Joe, let's address points from the article you posted:

The article says

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

The article says that he's lying because he was at other parties where other people, and some of the same folks (PJ and Mark Judge) were in attendance. I mean, to start with this is monumentally disingenuous. How in the world, Joe, does the fact that Kavanaugh went to high school parties translate into he was lying when he says he never attended a gathering like the one Ford describes in her allegation? He wasn't there, and and that means he wasn't anywhere - Blasey Ford isn't specific as to whose house and when it is - all that Kavanaugh can say is that he was not at a gathering like the one described by Ford. That doesn't mean the guy wasn't at any roughly similar parties - like - get togethers with other friends where they drank beer. Does it? I mean, does it? Surely you'll admit that the article does not illustrate a lie here.

So - go ahead - explain how Kavanaugh's statement "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation" has been demonstrated to be untrue. Remember, the authoer said "I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate."

So - point me to it.

Ah, as Seth once said, "so much bilge, so little time."

Look in the mirror Forty Two. You've done your usual strawman argument trick, misrepresenting the argument, and railing against that instead of the author's more powerful one. You quote the first sentence of a sizable passage and disingenuously paraphrase the rest.

Let's look at what you're trying to hide. From after your quote:

And here is the gathering as Ford describes it:

After a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending. I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur-of-the-moment gathering… People were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house.

Kavanaugh says that he never attended any event like this. Like what, though? He never attended a small gathering in Bethesda where people were drinking beer? Kavanaugh submitted his own calendars from the summer of 1982 into evidence for the Senate. As he said himself, “the calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers.” He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false, because the type of gathering he says he did attend is exactly the kind she describes.

Coverage of Ford’s allegations has often implied that the “party” at which she alleges she was assaulted was a kind of large Bacchanalian house party. This is a crucial part of Kavanaugh’s “calendar” defense: If there had been a big party, lots of people would have been there, it would probably have been on his summer calendar under “PAR-TAY!” It would have been notable, and since nobody seems to remember it and he even wrote far less significant events on his calendar, Ford must be misremembering.

But Ford has been clear: She is not talking about a big event. She is talking about a few friends and acquaintances hanging around drinking some beer in a living room:

It was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

It’s impossible to believe Kavanaugh when he says he never attended any event “like the one Dr. Ford describes.” It was a very typical low-key high school event, and it would have been shocking if Kavanaugh never attended such a thing. Indeed, he admits it himself.

Got that? The author claims Kavanaugh's statement appears to be contradicted by his own testimony. Unlike you, he even provides a link to the transcript, so we can check it out ourselves. Your paraphrasing doesn't mention this at all.

But he goes on.

Okay, so this was a weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar. But okay, maybe you think that he wasn’t trying to subtly reinforce the impression that Ford was alleging some kind of noteworthy event. Maybe you think he just meant “I never went to this kind of small gathering with the people Ford says.” Indeed, Kavanaugh says:

[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise.

Well it’s hard to misinterpret that. He was very precise. Who, then, is the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified? From her testimony:

There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending.

So presumably, if we looked at what Kavanaugh’s calendars show, we wouldn’t find an event with Mark Judge, P.J., some other boy, and Leland. Instead, he gives examples of the kinds of gatherings he did attend:

I [was] in D.C. on Saturday night, August 7th. But I was at a small gathering at Becky’s house in Rockville with Matt, Denise, Laurie and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won’t use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrets’ (ph) with Pat (ph) and Chris (ph) as we did final preparations for football training camp.

None of these names are the names Ford cites. Clearly she knows nothing about his summer. But wait: Let’s look at the entry for July 1st, one Kavanaugh did not cite in his list of “parties with people who are not the people Ford cited.” On July 1st, Kavanaugh planned to go “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” There’s Mark Judge! There’s P.J.! So he gathered for [brew]skis with 2 of the 3 people Ford says she remembers being there. Small gathering? Beer? Judge, Brett, and P.J.? Check, check, and check. So when Kavanaugh says none of the gatherings on the calendar include the people Ford says, and implies that Ford was just conjuring names of people he would never gather with, that’s false. In fact, she cited a small gathering with P.J. and Judge before he released his calendar confirming it.

So here, Robinson shows that physical evidence contradicts a statement Kavanaugh made. He even provides a picture of the calendar. Again, you don't mention it in your paraphrase.

So your "refutation" fails by relying on a strawman, and Robinson's case for lying under oath looks pretty solid, being based on actual testimony and physical evidence.

BTW, strawman is a polite term for lie, and occurs all too often in your arguments.

I don't appreciate you calling me a liar.

If you're really butthurt, like you get when I correct you, I suggest you whine to the mods. Or you could simply stop with the strawmen.

It detracts from your argument, too, because it's a distraction - when you make it about your opponent and instead of acknowledging a different opinion you attack the opponent's character, it suggests a weakness in your argument. And that weakness is obvious. I didn't lie, nor did I mischaracterize in any way the author's allegation as to Kavanaugh's alleged lie. I explained howe the author is wrong, yes, but nothing you wrote suggests I mischaracterized or strawmanned the author.

Yeah, my argument's so weak you hid it in a spoiler, and didn't reference it.

Your post sets out and quotes the article - and indeed what I said the author is claiming is dead on accurate - the author is claiming that the lie Kavanaugh told is about being at a party like that described by Ford. Which the author says is "Okay, so this was a weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar." And, the author points out several times where Kavanaugh noted that he did go to small high school gatherings.

The author interprets the sentence "I never attended a gathering like the one Ford describes in her allegation." You point out that the author provided "physical evidence" that it wasn't true, because there on his calendar is a July 1 gathering (with other people in attendance, at night (not during the day) and in a different location), and you and he say see, there is evidence he's lying, because that July 1 event is "like" the gathering he denied being at. That's exactly what I said his allegation was -- I did not strawman him.

Well, I see why you hid both of our posts in the spoiler. The author pointed out two discrepancies, which I documented in my post, with the full context of the article for all to see, and you didn't in yours. Now you're cherry-picking quotes from the two arguments to defend one Robinson didn't make, an obvious strawman. Other than that, all you offer here are disingenuously supported assertions that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Now, let's look at Kavanaugh's statement:

No, I'm not interested in changing the subject.You're just trying to distract from your pitiful argument. If you wish to continue that discussion, you are welcome to do so.

[Tero]

Robert Post, legal expert, comments on groveling pitiful GOP white man party hack:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ean-221086

[Brian Peacock]

...
With calculation and skill, Kavanaugh stoked the fires of partisan rage and male entitlement. He had apparently concluded that the only way he could rally Republican support was by painting himself as the victim of a political hit job. He therefore offered a witches’ brew of vicious unfounded charges, alleging that Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee were pursuing a vendetta on behalf of the Clintons. If we expect judges to reach conclusions based solely on reliable evidence, Kavanaugh’s savage and bitter attack demonstrated exactly the opposite sensibility.

I was shell-shocked. This was not the Brett Kavanaugh I thought I knew. Having come so close to confirmation, Kavanaugh apparently cared more about his promotion than about preserving the dignity of the Supreme Court to which he aspired to join. Even if he sought to defend his honor as a husband and father, his unbalanced rantings about political persecution were so utterly inconsistent with the dispassionate temperament we expect from judges that one had to conclude that he had chosen ambition over professionalism.

His performance is indelibly etched in the public mind. For as long as Kavanaugh sits on the court, he will remain a symbol of partisan anger, a haunting reminder that behind the smiling face of judicial benevolence lies the force of an urgent will to power. No one who felt the force of that anger could possibly believe that Kavanaugh might actually be a detached and impartial judge. Each and every Republican who votes for Kavanaugh, therefore, effectively announces that they care more about controlling the Supreme Court than they do about the legitimacy of the court itself. There will be hell to pay.

...

[cronus]

Takes you back to suffragette days in the UK about a century ago. Easier to unleash a tiger than recapture one. Twice so when you've angered half your population.

[Seabass]

NYT: F.B.I. Review of Kavanaugh Was Limited From the Start

[Tero]

Forward to Jan 2019
Trump and Pence meet Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court undergraund garage. Pence is hanging out by the stairway as lookout.
Trump: ”As one pussy grabber to another one, you owe me one.”
Kavanaugh: Yes sir.

He only has to put with Trump for 2 years. Then he can go wild with eminent domain for corporations to push citizens and farmers aside. New deep state.

[Tero]

”There’s holes in her story! She can’t name who drove her home and her best friend was not at the party! Just she and 3 guys!”
Politico
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... med-878748

[Tyrannical]

”There’s holes in her story! She can’t name who drove her home and her best friend was not at the party! Just she and 3 guys!”
Politico
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/ ... med-878748

She didn't remember the year, month, day, or time when it happened.
She didn't know where the party was, who's house it was, how she got there or how she got home.
All four of her named 'witnesses' deny it.

Her story is nothing but a giant hole. Don't be surprised if she gets indicted for perjury

[Tero]

Well, why would she remember the street? The house she could recognize and avoid every party there. You know very well high schoolers are very opportunistic about where the party was. Do you remember the street of the party where you first smoked pot?

Let me guess. "I don't remember, cause I was smoking pot."

[laklak]

Boarding school, 1970. I'd never even seen weed before. My parents sent me there to keep me away from drugs.