Printable View
One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.
If telling the truth, what she lost was many years ago.
But that wouldn't make him a monster...only willing to lie to the justice system and the American people.
No sane way around it...it must be investigated
For me, NO regardless of party. Im sure I did far worse when I was in HS. People grow, mature and learn from their mistakes. Im sure I felt a girl up as a HS SR. I know I did as a college freshman. I look at SCOTUS appointees as mature adults who rule on the letter of the law. Events from 3 decades ago don't disqualify to me, be it Kagen or KavanaughQuote:
Can I ask a very strange, controversial and non-partisan question?
Removing all political ties, is this an automatic disqualifier?
If this were a Democratic appointee, would it be disqualifying?
so we base who is telling the truth on who has more to lose? RidiculousQuote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
it's not false, it just depends on who you believe in the various stories out there. Her story has changed more than once, and there are accounts from people that she wasn't sure, though she says she was always sure. then there are the other variations in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
One or two are easily enough dismissed. a Therapist's notes could be taken down wrong enough that it's understandable, but there's more of a pattern of and evolving remembrance here than one would see with something like this unless we're dealing with something so traumatic it was partially or completely repressed, which is possible but hasn't been claimed.
She has varied on the number of people, what house it was, when it was, etc. That's a lot of unsure for someone so traumatized by an event she can't live in a house without an escape route nearly 40 years later.
He was nominated for SCOTUS. He's been investigated for months and months, by the FBI, White House, and the opposition. That's what makes the whole "FBI must investigate" thing ring somewhat hollow.He has been investigated.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
that doesn't even count the media. The NYT interviewed "dozens" of people per their own account on this 2nd story and decided to not run it b/c o the lack of any substantiation. Since his announcement do you really think that entire floors of reporters and lawyers havent' been engaged full time in investigating every morsel of his life?
If they have the FBI investigate some more OK, but the idea implies that he hasn't had his life examined with one of the biggest microscopes of all time already, and that's just not the case.
Not only is that not necessarily the case, but the idea that the person with the most to lose is the most likely to be lying is disturbing and completely without any basis whatsoever in empirically. Any number of studies haves shown that witness issues have little if anything to do with such factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
There is a large body of research on this subject, the subject of witness credibility. It shows pretty clearly that even eyewitness accounts from uninvolved bystanders are highly influenced by events after the fact, are easily suggestible, and can be grossly inaccurate.
And it certainly has nothing to do with who has the most to lose. It's well proven that people with nothing to lose are wrong as much as anyone else in these processes. Humans are shockingly poor at remembering details, are easily biased in their memories, and generally make very poor recording devices.
No one here has to be lying for one of them to be wrong, or both of them wrong, or even both largely right.
Not necessarily, both could believe they are being truthful. Ford seems awfully sketchy on details for me to think that she could accurately identify her attacker. She was also caught up on several instances of being less than truthful. Claims of being afraid to fly were thoroughly debunked, as were claims that the committee didn’t offer to go to California and speak with her. I lay part of that on her lawyers for likely trying to fix her faulty memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Had that been the issue, the actual issue, it could have been done had Dianne Frankenstein done what a reasonable legislator interested in the truth does rather than a political hack. For 60 days the left had the accusation and elected to sit on it. Their cries for a delay so the FBI can do an investigation ring hallow because of the delay. It crystal clear they sat on it and waited to release to delay the vote until after the election. I'd been fine with doing it back in August, behind closed doors but no...the left elected to keep their ace in the hole, the insurance policy so to speak, then throw it out now. It reeks of political scumbaggery. They had their chance and elected to blow itQuote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
The studies suggest that speaking to a therapist about things really doesn't add much to the probability of it being accurate. Now it goes to her honestly, but not her accuracy. that's a very significant difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
As for mentioning other people, again the research shows it's not much of a factor in such situations.
remember, she could believe every single thing she is saying, and remember it that way, and still be very wrong or largely wrong or just wrong enough that it wasn't "assault" but was just an awkward drunken high school event.
And in fairness the same could be said for Kavanaugh. Maybe he flirted with her or grabbed her at some drunken party and was just "making a pass" and didn't give it a second thought, but in her state of mind she thought it was an indication of a real threat of harm and assault. Both are telling the truth, both are "right" to a large extent, b/c the truth is in the middle.
the point is you can't convict an innocent person based on "she sure seemed sincere". The record books are full of minorities and poor people being wrongly convicted of crimes based on the emphatic testimony of a single, respectable pillar of the local community. Just b/c they make a compelling, even sincere, witness doesn't mean we should accept it as necessarily wholly accurate.
That's esp. true when the entire thing is based on her perception that a groping was going to be the beginning of something far worse. Remember she's not claiming she was raped, just that she felt she would be. Doesn't mean she's wrong or that's OK, I'm just pointing out that she can be totally accurate in the honesty of her beliefs and still be wrong that anything deeply wrong was done by Kavanaugh. There's just a lot of steps of gray in this tale still.
And as I said, Kavanaugh was also very convincing to many, and neither should that convince us he must be telling the truth either. Again, he is subject to the same inaccuracies she is in memory and perception.
She recalls exactly the number of beers she drank, but not where she was? The house almost had to be the home of one of those at the party. Every person she placed being at the party claimed it didn’t happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
I was wondering if this would come up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
It is controversial, but it's the right question to ask.
In the end, even if we accept her story completely, it is still saying that she only believed she was in danger, but there is no other proof she was in danger, and in terms of actual events this was a drunken groping at a high school party nearly 40 years ago.
let's say he did get drunk and grope a girl at such a party. Leave out the rape part, b/c what we can establish without bringing perception into it if we accept her at her word is that she was groped. Does that disqualify him from SCOTUS?
Does it disqualify someone from another job? What's the threshold for bad high school behavior that disqualifies someone from a high ranking job somewhere?
it's an interesting question no doubt.
What if she had gone to authorities and this was investigated and never prosecuted? Does that change things? What if he was prosecuted and was found guilty and served his time and showed contrition and has had no other issues in the remaining years?
I agree, it's a fascinating area of thought on this question.
There's a push now, largely on the left, to expunge the felony convictions of many people so they regain the right to vote, etc. Rights which heretofore were permanently removed. The argument is they have served their time, the crimes are in many cases decades old and they have had no other issues. Is this the same kind of concept?
I imagine Darrell could get some really interesting discussion in his class on this topic by taking on these aspects of it and stepping away from the political maneuvering.
I genuinely believe that none of us can with any accuracy know whether it’s true. There are points to be made on both sides of that.
We also can all probably agree that no matter what happens the decision to push him through or not will be a political one.
Do I think the accusation should disqualify him (taking away all politics and no matter what I would do in their position)? No.
There is virtually no way to prove or disprove it. I would probably not vote him in for political reasons. But I do believe he SHOULD go through.
Last time I though I qas going tk be raped, I remember wher it was, when it was, how many beers I had......
I understand not being 100% clear on minute details....what folks were wearing, what time it was, the date, etc...but to recall you had exactly ONE beer but not where you were isnt something Im buying
I would agree, as I stated above. Disqualifying him on his rulings if poor one (not just because you disagree, but are incorr ed xt based on the law as written), or on provable actions. That Im fine with but not on innuendo and unsupported accusations. The right didnt like Kagen or Sotomayor but many on the GOP voted for them because from a legal interpretation of the law, they were qualified. Too bad the left does not hold the same standard. They will "Bork" any conservative simply because the ends justify the meansQuote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
Exactly. This is where her whole story falls apart. Her memory is very inconsistent in what she would and wouldn't remember, esp. in light of this being a trauma she claims is severe.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
So let's say she did have deeply traumatic experience at a party. She remembers who was in the room, including the standing by friend, and exactly what she had to drink, but has no recollection of exactly when it was, or where it was, or any other circumstances AROUND when and where it was that would help us to narrow it down to a day or date or location.
Totally sure it's him, and sure she wasn't impaired, but cannot narrow down anything that might allow anyone to disprove her claim by showing he wasn't present or couldn't have been him, etc., and nothing that would let even the FBI go and track down additional witnesses to get their statements.
Now, isn't that convenient? She remembers very precisely exactly the facts she needs to keep him off the bench, but very few facts that could be use to substantiate or disprove her story.
And the few she does remember all point to disproving it btw. All of the people she has remembered deny any knowledge of it, including her described friend.
If this were in a real court and not the court of public opinion this would be shredded by a good lawyer. Absolutely shredded, and no prosecutor would even try to bring this case b/c it's clear it would happen.
BTW, as someone who has had a couple of good scares in his life, non sexual but physical scares, I'm very disbelieving that you are SOBER, go home, wake up the next day traumatized and yet none of the specifics of where you were, or when you were there, are seared into your memory.
No. You wake up the next day, probably in a panic and with sweat soaked sheets, and you remember exactly the events that led to that event. You wonder why you ever went to Suzie's house, you remember when you decided to go into the room, you remember how you wish you'd gone home with Jane, etc. and if it's so traumatic you literally can't sleep in a room without an exit, you for sure remember where you were and how you got there.
You just do. You are in a panic about going back to school on Monday, seeing this person, seeing your friends. Maybe you confide in someone, maybe not, but you will either have these details burned in there or you will repress it in whole or in large part, and she has never claimed any memory repression that I have heard.
that's why I think she's not intentionally lying, but her mind has filled in gaps over the years in ways that makes it unreliable to trust her perceptions of threat in that event.
One of Ford’s witnesses, Leland Keyser, said she didn’t even know Kavanaugh.
I just thought about this, but are you saying maybe she is lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
She has a lot to lose. She's a confirmed pretty far left member of the "resistance". Before this started it's been reported her social media was scrubbed of her political comments so as to not look like an Anti-trumper.
If she believes in her soul, as many do, that raising Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS bench means the end of abortions in this country, doesn't she maybe think she (and the nation) have a lot to lose?
Wouldn't that make her highly motivated and willing to lie to the American people and Congress?
This whole "lot to lose" thing is a two way street. If Kavanaugh withdraws he's still on the DC bench, drawing a good salary with almost no chance of being removed from a lifetime appointment. His reputation will be tarnished forever, but at this point that's the case regardless of what he does.
If he did it why wouldn't he be afraid more would come out? He could claim this is damaging his family and withdraw in a tear filled statement of denial, and go back to his very good career and avoid that risk of losing it all.
We can play these motives games all day both ways. In the end both sides are DEEPLY motivated to do whatever it takes to either get or stop having another conservative on the bench. Both sides an both individuals potentially have a LOT to lose.
Details you “will never forget” generally include where and when something happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Doc,Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
You are a thoughtful poster. I appreciate your words and positions. I also agree people grow up. But I sure hope you never did to a woman what Dr. Ford says kavanaugh did. So your far worse comment I will take as an exaggeration. Want to think you wouldn’t force yourself on a woman like some dog in heat.
Judges ain’t saints but males drunk or sober who force themselves on women aren’t fit to preside over the lives of others. Listening to ford got me pretty angry. I don’t like the idea of a person bullying others. Forcing themselves on women.
I lean towards ford in this. Regardless kavanaugh showed a lack of composure that is far from a tempered person capable of serving on the bench.
Oh, I probably grabbed a tit or two. I never raped anybody but then neither did Kavanaugh. While I do believe her story, one that she did have some type of traumatic episode, I do not believe she was ever in danger of rape or death, as she feared. High school boys and girls do inappropriate things, things I know as a 55 year old are wrong. Its part of growing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by UKHistory
PS: I appreciate the compliment. I try to be reasonable although don't always succeed. I try tonsee the bad sides of bothnsides and admit when the right side is wrong
I'll be honest. I expect BK to screw the pooch. I expected his "calendars" to be bogus, and him coming away looking like a guilty person trying to feign innocence. I really did. But he wasn't by a long shot. His calendars sealed it for me. I mean what HSer keeps those type of extemporaneous records? None that I know of but apparently he did. And I mean he actually did, which is shocking to me. He laid out exactly when he was where and by the time line she provided, he refutiated the accusation. I could not have done that.
If it could be proven he did attend the party and the situation went down like she said, would that disqualify him at this point in everyone's mind?
That's important to clarify in this discussion I think
By the way, I did read everyone's response to my opinion, but there are too many for me to respond in kind.
I stand by my thoughts on it all yet appreciate the differing views
There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.
I don't justify Garland. I stated many times I didn't like the tactics used by the GOP. However it was the left who originally floated the idea that a lame duck President should not make a SCOTUS appointment. Of course this isn't a lame duck president. It was also the left that pushed thru the nuclear option, something many openly predicted would come back to haunt them exactly as it has. Dems either thought they would never lose control or that the right was too big of a wimp to do it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
My daughter and I are in Toronto this weekend and this is largely the morning topic at breakfast in the hotel we are staying.
Most here see this as a ruse and would be not taken seriously if this was done through their political machine here.
They have no dog in this fight and the majority of folks I’ve met here have the same opinion.
Looks like they are going to confirm him.
This will majorly help Dems in the mid-terms.
That’s a sacrifice I think the Republicans are willing to make because the Supreme Court holds more power now.
But I expect it nonetheless.
Dems will certainly gain the House. I think this gives them an outside shot at the Senate. The map is very tough but it will be close.
If that happens, we will have a stalemate for two years until 2020.
2020 will be a war. The Dem primary will be fascinating just of itself.
One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.
I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing
And moderates are getting squeezed out during nomination processes making it almost impossible for their to be bipartisan anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcat
Flake is retiring on his own and he is one of the most reasonable Senators out there on either side. This is going to get worse, not better. Because both parties are nominating people that are further and further left and right. A moderate has virtually no chance of winning anymore. So expect this to get worse...not better.
Heck, our news programs are now 100% divided on party lines. Further and further into our corners we go.
Is Flake changing his mind? Some think he might be.