Brett Kavanaugh Circus

[sevenofnine]

my gut feeling is its a which hunt it is a bunch of political maneuvering,
that is just my gut, I don't think we will ever know,

he was vetted six times by the FBI already,
the lady in question has a well not a clear memory, they don't know whose house the party was at where it was, who was there,
people who were supposed to be, said they were not, and like I said they don't even know where this party was,

she most likely was assaulted but other then that the details are all foggy,

36 years ago, the guy was vetted six times. all ready,
give me a fucking break,

I don't think we will ever really know.

and another think didn't he say, a sitting president can never be indicted, that is the clincher isn't it, its all political
political maneuvering.

 

[nightswhisper]

The Hearing was delayed because Ford wouldn't fly as she has a phobia of flying. Yet they found out she was flying all over to vacations;

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...istine-ford-testimony-fear-flying/1443978002/

What is the point of this entire smear campaign.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Blasey Ford is obviously a very disturbed and damaged woman, but to all who blindly believe her story, I wonder why facts mean less than emotion.

It may all be true, and Kavanaugh attempted to assault her, but there have been no facts - just her assertion.

All people who supposedly were at this party deny being there. She doesn't know where the house was, but must have known it, or had an address, or was dropped off by someone - BEFORE she was traumatised. If she told someone about it the next day, wouldn't the first questions be by who, and where? Yet nobody remembers any details. Even her psychiatric notes didn't mention a name. Kavanaugh's name is a relatively recent memory.

She testified that her hippocampus retaind the searing memory of the boys laughing at her, but didn't seem to retain how she left the party, how she made it home, or why she left her friend with rapists. And how did the firend get home? Wouldn't she have been curious to know where Blasey went and confront her?

Finally, there's was no mention about her state in the days after the alleged assault. Was she behaving oddly, avoiding people, crying, withdrawn? She apparently saw and approached Mark Judge weeks later to say hi. Why would she appraoch someone who almost watched her being raped, in order to say hi? Not to confront him, but the exchange pleasantries.

 

[clu]

You don't seem to understand how traumatic memory works.

 

[nightswhisper]

You don't seem to understand how traumatic memory works.

There's always an explanation for everything the accuser does but the guilty is assumed guilty until proven innocent?

That's seems like an odd double standard.

 

[clu]

There's always an explanation for everything the accuser does but the guilty is assumed guilty until proven innocent?

That's seems like an odd double standard.

I'm only asserting that they should dig into it and stop trying to railroad it through. There's a difference between calling her credible and calling him guilty.

Everyone seems in too much of a hurry.

 

[clu]

The Hearing was delayed because Ford wouldn't fly as she has a phobia of flying. Yet they found out she was flying all over to vacations;

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...istine-ford-testimony-fear-flying/1443978002/

What is the point of this entire smear campaign.

Ok. That one is a total non-starter. I know at least two people who are afraid of flying but do it anyway. They take their anti-anxiety meds and try not to throw up.

 

[nightswhisper]

I'm only asserting that they should dig into it and stop trying to railroad it through. There's a difference between calling her credible and calling him guilty.

Everyone seems in too much of a hurry.

What the hell? There's absolutely no difference between the two. Neither of them are credible or guilty at this point.

You can't be serious about this bias.

 

[nightswhisper]

Ok. That one is a total non-starter. I know at least two people who are afraid of flying but do it anyway. They take their anti-anxiety meds and try not to throw up.

And I know people who've been accused of rape but didn't.

 

[clu]

What the hell? There's absolutely no difference between the two. Neither of them are credible or guilty at this point.

You can't be serious about this bias.

Totally serious. You're missing the nuance.

Credible means "worth taking seriously." Even Fox News called her credible and a devastating witness. It doesn't mean "100% sure she's right." I listened to her testimony. I listened to his. It's not enough to render judgment yet. More info is warranted, and not subject to some "one week, limited scope" mandate.

The thing I don't understand is why people feel you have to buy all of Column A or all of Column B. The argument goes that this is a blatant political move by the Democrats so she can't be telling the truth. Can't it be both? I have no shortage of scepticism when it comes to politicians' motivations. Yeah this is a dirty trick. But it doesn't mean she's lying.

One thing for sure: he's lying since he misled on the meaning of things he wrote, on how drunk he got (according to his roommate and numerous classmates), etc. This doesn't mean he sexually assaulted her of course. But it's not a good look for a supposed Supreme Court judge. If it were up to me, his performance in that hearing alone would be grounds to disqualify him from the job, innocent or no.

But regardless, there's enough cause to dig more to see why he was being misleading.

ETA: plus do remember there are two more accusations waiting in the wings. Maybe those will fall apart, maybe not. But the right thing would be diligence.

 

[nightswhisper]

Totally serious. You're missing the nuance.

Credible means "worth taking seriously." Even Fox News called her credible and a devastating witness. It doesn't mean "100% sure she's right." I listened to her testimony. I listened to his. It's not enough to render judgment yet. More info is warranted, and not subject to some "one week, limited scope" mandate.

The thing I don't understand is why people feel you have to buy all of Column A or all of Column B. The argument goes that this is a blatant political move by the Democrats so she can't be telling the truth. Can't it be both? I have no shortage of scepticism when it comes to politicians' motivations. Yeah this is a dirty trick. But it doesn't mean she's lying.

One thing for sure: he's lying since he misled on the meaning of things he wrote, on how drunk he got (according to his roommate and numerous classmates), etc. This doesn't mean he sexually assaulted her of course. But it's not a good look for a supposed Supreme Court judge. If it were up to me, his performance in that hearing alone would be grounds to disqualify him from the job, innocent or no.

But regardless, there's enough cause to dig more to see why he was being misleading.

ETA: plus do remember there are two more accusations waiting in the wings. Maybe those will fall apart, maybe not. But the right thing would be diligence.

You're advocating unbiased opinion whilst holding biased opinion based on unproven statements.

 

[clu]

You're advocating unbiased opinion whilst holding biased opinion based on unproven statements. What the hell?

I don't follow. How is saying "it's possible she's telling the truth" a bias?

The only opinion I'm holding is that IMHO his behaviour is not fitting of a Supreme Court judge. You know, I have thought about what I would do in his shoes if I were innocent. That's why I find his behaviour perplexing. I had expected better.

But still that's a separate issue from whether or not he might be guilty. On that I cannot say yet. So what bias are you talking about?

 

[nightswhisper]

I don't follow. How is saying "it's possible she's telling the truth" a bias?

The only opinion I'm holding is that IMHO his behaviour is not fitting of a Supreme Court judge. You know, I have thought about what I would do in his shoes if I were innocent. That's why I find his behaviour perplexing. I had expected better.

But still that's a separate issue from whether or not he might be guilty. On that I cannot say yet. So what bias are you taking about?

Your bias lies in the fact that you're willing to not believe defamation attempts against Ford, while judging Kavanaugh to be lying.

You're advocating that we should hear both sides of the story, and not be in column A or B. Meanwhile, you refuse to be in Column B for Ford and stand in Column A against Kavanaugh. When someone points out that Ford has inconsistencies with her habits, you eagerly defend her. Yet at the same time, you assume no pretense in condemning Kavanaugh to being a liar simply because he didn't answer any leading questions.

That's a ridiculous way of being unbiased if I've ever heard of one.

 

[nightswhisper]

No but if he is found to have been lying to a Senate hearing, it could be career ending and possible disbarment.

He never did answer the direct question if he would ask the Senate chair and the White House to commence an FBI investigation knowing that lying to FBI is a Federal crime. He was careful not to go there but said something innocuous that he would support a 'generic' investigation.

Making statements that can be used or accountable against you should be the last thing anyone does. The last thing he needs right now is to make a statement that will further people's rhetoric against him.

Plenty of people have lied to the senate before. A senate hearing is legislative, not judiciary.

 

[clu]

Your bias lies in the fact that you're willing to not believe defamation attempts against Ford, while judging Kavanaugh to be lying.

You're advocating that we should hear both sides of the story, and not be in column A or B. Meanwhile, you refuse to be in Column B for Ford and stand in Column A against Kavanaugh. When someone points out that Ford has inconsistencies with her habits, you eagerly defend her. Yet at the same time, you assume no pretense in condemning Kavanaugh to being a liar simply because he didn't answer any leading questions.

That's a ridiculous way of being unbiased if I've ever heard of one.

It's called Devil's Advocate. In trying to explore all the possibilities one doesn't waste time agreeing with one's "opponent" in debate. I'm saying there are legit alternate explanations that can stop Ford's accusation from being taken off the board. You're already covering the counter argument, so why should I repeat you?

And for the record, I judged Kavanaugh to be lying about very specific things:

1. He did not drink to excess. I heard an on-air interview with a classmate that disagreed. His roommate disagreed. "Bart O'Kavanaugh" disagrees. This is thus not unsubstantiated.

2. His explanation of what Devil's Triangle and "boofing" meant. It's suspicious that he had an uncommon definition for these terms.

I never implied that I then assumed everything else he said to be a lie. I did question why these things were misrepresented though. Does that not seem fair?

Beyond that, his belligerence in the hearing also betrayed a temperament that was more in keeping with the kind of personality that Ford made him out to be. Legit or not he did himself a disservice to his credibility by behaving that way.

So I conclude so far only that he's an asshole, which I had no expectation of when going into the hearing.

He did himself no favours.

So now I advocate for a further third party investigation, not hamstrung by political mandates.

But if your response to this is another "what the hell?" then I don't know what else there is to say.

 

[Cock Throppled]

You don't seem to understand how traumatic memory works.

And you're discounting reasonable questions she should be asked.

She has no details of what happened BEFORE the incident. Those memories don't disappear just because she may have suffered a traumatic event at a later time. That's not how traumatic memory works, either. Sometimes it's known as "selective memory". Also, the way she behaved and responded to people afterwards is quite relevant.

I think the prosecutor hired to ask questions flat out failed to ask pertinent questions, and failed to follow up. It's probably a result of the reverse approach now, where an accuser can't be challenged too closely, or it looks like he/she is being harrassed.

 

[clu]

And you're discounting reasonable questions she should be asked.

She has no details of what happened BEFORE the incident. Those memories don't disappear just because she may have suffered a traumatic event at a later time. That's not how traumatic memory works, either. Sometimes it's known as "selective memory". Also, the way she behaved and responded to people afterwards is quite relevant.

I think the prosecutor hired to ask questions flat out failed to ask pertinent questions, and failed to follow up. It's probably a result of the reverse approach now, where an accuser can't be challenged too closely, or it looks like he/she is being harrassed.

No. Traumatic memory causes certain details of the trauma to be seared into one's brain. It doesn't result in any better recollection of events before the trauma than after.

It works with any memories involving heightened awareness. Not just traumatic ones. Non-traumatic but equivalent example: I remember details of losing my virginity. I know 100% certain who it was with. I remember we went back to her place after watching a movie at a friend's house with a bunch of people. I remember the movie. I remember the decor of the house. I remember the sweater she was wearing and the move she made that signalled it was time to leave and be alone. I do not remember who else was there, how I got there, or even for sure who's house it was. I do not remember the date. I wasn't assaulted but my adrenaline was pumping (for different reasons), and so that's the memory I've got. You could argue I'm mistaken. It didn't happen. It was a different girl. You could search the last time I made mention of it and say my story is not consistent because I called it a party that time. But that's just absurd to my mind.

Based on that and a knowledge of how traumatic memory does work for friends who have been raped (e.g. remembering the colour of the drapes and smell of cigarettes but not things that would be particularly forensically useful) I find peoples' expectations for what she should and shouldn't remember to be unrealistic.

Look, Devil's Advocate, Ford is a trained psychologist, so she would know what authentic traumatic memory looks like and know what rings genuine. But that's a hell of a gamble, requires her to be a good actress on top. If it turns out she was captain of the improv team in college that'll be worth noting.

ETA: on insufficient follow up we can both agree. (On questions for Kavanaugh too.) Hence, more investigation is warranted.

 

[badbadboy]

Making statements that can be used or accountable against you should be the last thing anyone does. The last thing he needs right now is to make a statement that will further people's rhetoric against him.

Plenty of people have lied to the senate before. A senate hearing is legislative, not judiciary.

If he is found to have being dishonest to the senate judiciary committee it could lead to impeachment. This is what happened to Bill Clinton.

The judicial body overseeing conduct of lawyers could call for disbarment or the District of Columbia could move to have him removed from the bench.

 

[80watts]

Trust, taking people at face value; are things that have gone in our lives..... society needs to have trust, and taking people at face value.

 

[Cock Throppled]

If Kavanaugh is guilty, he will not only not become SC justice, he will no longer be a judge at all, will be disbarred, and criminally prosecuted.

If Blasey Ford is wrong, nothing will happen to her.

The big winners? The Democrats.

Mistakes do happen...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsBplRi1PfA