New SCOTUS Judge

[Cain]

Ummm...no. Journalists have not claimed she is credible because she thought about it for 6 days.

(New Yorker)

How is consulting with a lawyer and thinking about it somehow indicative of not being credible. Thinking about it , imo, makes it more credible.

No.

Are you familiar with the power of suggestion? It's one of the easiest ways to corrupt eye witness testimony. And it can corrupt testimony right after an event occurs, much less thirty years later -- never mind she was heavily inebriated at the time the alleged incident occurred. There's wall-to-wall coverage of her former classmate, so it's perfectly natural that she "searches" her memory and finds him. Again, like experts have warned all along, memories are constructed.

I have not read the New Yorkerarticle, but in an interview on NPR this morning, one of the journalists said that classmates had been e-mailing each other back n' forth about the incident shortly after Kavanaugh was nominated. That sounds more promising, but a classmate could have just as well misremembered.

ETA: I also caught part of an interview with Ronan Farrow earlier today and, as far as I recall, he said that she was credible because she spent six days probing her memories.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Democrats say every woman has a right to be believed:

Unless you're raped by Bill Clinton
Beaten by Keith Ellison
Groped by Corey Booker
Or killed by Ted Kennedy​

-- Charlie Kirk (Sept 24, 2018)

Have we reached peak witch-hunt yet?

 

[The Big Dog]

Lawyer coaching a witness is standard and very reasonable practice. It says nothing about the witness's credibility.

Between the bad arguments and the trolling, your body of work does conservatism more harm than good.

I know you think you're fighting the good fight, but mostly you're just beclowning yourself and anyone else who's standing too close. Which is why I try to keep as much distance as I can.

Hi! Thanks for posting. Lawyers coaching witnesses is neither standard nor reasonable and destroys a witness’s credibility. Coaching a witness means that the lawyer tells the witness what to say.

Coaching a witness is sanctionable and unethical conduct

here is an article that explains it

I enjoy your posts, let’s endeavor not to get anything that wrong ever again.

 

[Travis]

A reminder. One side here wants an investigation. And isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side here took polygraphs and isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side wants witnesses to be able to testify on the matter and it isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side here wants to do the right thing and it isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.

One side does want to obfuscate and rush things so that facts get buried and it is Kavanaugh, his rape brothers and the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side does look like they really don't care if multiple women were raped just so long as they can get their guy on the court.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Main points of Kavanaugh's FOX interview are summarized here.

Cornyn, Graham, and Hatch are all indicating that they want a vote from the committee on Friday, but that is up to Grassley. If it is on Friday, then it looks like the second accuser wouldn't be testifying. The rest of the Republican Senators seem to be saying they will wait until Thursday.

I originally thought McConnell would be swift to toss Kavanaugh if he thought he didn't have the votes, but it looks like his calculation is different:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is warning his colleagues publicly and privately that his plan is to hold a floor vote on Kavanaugh no matter what happens in the Judiciary Committee, possibly as soon as early next week. Though Kavanaugh currently lacks the votes to be confirmed, the GOP leader is signaling that he will hold the vote anyway to force all 100 senators to go on record and put maximum pressure on red state Democrats that the GOP is hoping to defeat this fall, Republican senators said.

Whether that vote will be successful remains in doubt, the senators said.

Linky.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not necessarily. From his own and Judge's descriptions of his high school/college years, he was falling down drunk a lot of the time. He may not remember these incidents. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. When you have one woman come forward, that's one thing. But when you have two, maybe 3, it becomes a bit harder to wave them away.

I was falling down drunk a lot of the time in high school. I am extremely confident I didn't sexually assault anyone, even though there are times I cannot remember.

I'm not saying it is impossible to not remember that you sexually assaulted someone, but the circumstances that surround a high school drunk would make it highly unlikely you didn't remember, and darned near impossible that no one (other than the victim) would remember.

Kavanaugh knows whether these stories are true.

 

[The Big Dog]

A reminder. One side here wants an investigation. And isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side here took polygraphs and isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side wants witnesses to be able to testify on the matter and it isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side here wants to do the right thing and it isn't Kavanaugh, his rape brothers or the rape enabling Trump White House.

One side does want to obfuscate and rush things so that facts get buried and it is Kavanaugh, his rape brothers and the rape enabling Trump White House.


One side does look like they really don't care if multiple women were raped just so long as they can get their guy on the court.

Kavanaugh testified under oath already. The accuser refused.

The vote was set for the 21st, the accuser got several extensions.

She was not raped, does not claimed to have been raped.

She identified four people, all deny it.

Or when you said rape brothers, did you mean to refer to the woman who contradicted her as a rape sister?

Call her a rape sister.

 

[Meadmaker]

We've had a full news cycle since the Ramirez allegations surface. I, for one, think I need at least another full news cycle before drawing any conclusions about that veracity of the allegations.

The thing I can't help but notice is something that The Big Dog already brought up. There were several people in the room at the time of the incident. The people who were named as being in the room by Ramirez all say it didn't happen. The confirmatory witnesses were not people in the room, but people who heard about it. That makes me very suspicious that her memory is incorrect.

It's my opinion that if several people saw this happen, one of them would come forward. If no one comes forward, I think that really throws the scenario into doubt. At some point, the dog that didn't bark has to be considered as evidence.

However, that's premature right now. They haven't had time to discuss it with their families, their friends, their lawyers. They may never come forward, even if they know it's true, but without their confirmation, or some other more compelling evidence, I think it becomes another decades old rumor.

To really be confident, I think an FBI investigation is needed. I think most people would tell everything they know if asked by the FBI, whereas some would not want to get involved as long as it's purely a media situation. I still would oppose an FBI investigation myself, because, as noted earlier, I think people should be allowed to keep 35 year old memories private if that is their decision, but if you think it is important to get to the truth, an FBI investigation is the best way to do it.

And I don't think that anyone can say confidently what the truth is at this point. I think that Ms. Ford's story has too many holes to be believed as is, but that doesn't mean the essential point, which is that she was assaulted by Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh, has been disproved. I simply believe that in the absence of proof, and by proof I simply mean stronger, convincing, evidence, we have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, even if he disagrees with us on Roe v. Wade.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I didn't go to the police. I didn't tell my parents. I didn't tell his parents. (We were teenagers.) I don't think I told anyone for at least four years, and I doubt I've ever told more than five people, total, unless you count nearly anonymous postings like this one

So, what's the moral of the story? It's that not telling people about incidents like this one is pretty normal.

Sorry to hear, guy. FWIW I went through something similar. The fact of the matter is that many victims of sexual assault simply don't report their victimization. Reporting crimes of this nature to the police means having one's personal life sifted through by strangers and having one's credibility challenged in court - after one has already suffered a deeply personal violation.

 

[smartcooky]

Hi! Thanks for posting. Lawyers coaching witnesses is neither standard nor reasonable and destroys a witness’s credibility. Coaching a witness means that the lawyer tells the witness what to say.

Coaching a witness is sanctionable and unethical conduct

Not always

here is an article that explains it

To coin a term I'm sure you'll understand....Hooboy!

Did you actually read the PDF you linked?

--- on the very first page

In any adversarial contest, good coaching can often be the difference between winning and losing. Good coaching is generally defined as a form of development that leads an individual to the achievement of a specific personal or professional goal through training and guidance. When we think of successful sports franchisees like the San Antonio Spurs and New England Patriots, we note how their coaches motivate players to execute and perform in the winning ways they repeatedly practice. As lawyers think about preparing a witness for deposition or trial, they rightly believe an effectively coached witness will produce a winning outcome as well.​

Looks like you (again) didn't check to see of the link you provided to support your assertion, actually does support your assertion.

HINT: It doesn't!

let’s endeavor not to get anything that wrong ever again.

I agree... y'all should do that!

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's very possible that the allegations are false or cannot be proven. I don't understand why the Republicans just don't have the FBI investigate to confirm that their is no credible evidence to support the allegations. I suspect that they are afraid of what the FBI will find though.

Also, the sexual misconduct allegations are just another set of problems with Kavanaugh. Brett IS guilty of perjury and misuse of stolen documents. There is also the fact that the GOP is hiding most of his legal writings and records. Everything about this Kavanaugh confirmation process smells of corruption and cover-up.

 

[smartcooky]

The truth is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, in high school or otherwise.
-Brett Kavanaugh


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.49f6d117abe0

How did that famous denial go? Oh yes!

"I did not - have - sexual - relations - with that woman!"

 

[The Big Dog]

“Coaching in the context of witness preparation has been defined as “obfuscating the truth or instructing [a] witness to lie.’”

So that just happened.

Pro tip: coaching a witness is bad, very very bad. Never use the word coaching in regards to witness testimony.

 

[Travis]

Also, what's the moral here? Don't go to the police if someone victimizes you. Instead, if you keep quiet for thirty years, maybe they'll come before a Congressional confirmation committee, and the FBI will have to investigate accusations that should have been investigated thirty years ago.

And if they don't ever get nominated to high federal office? No big deal. It's not like you ever really wanted that investigation anyway.

Victims often just try to deal with it on their own. I know I did. I never went to the police. I never even told my parents or close friends. Mostly I just wanted to move on, try and live my life and not be a bother. I imagine that a similar line of reasoning happens in other victims that don't come forward.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Victims often just try to deal with it on their own. I know I did. I never went to the police. I never even told my parents or close friends. Mostly I just wanted to move on, try and live my life and not be a bother. I imagine that a similar line of reasoning happens in other victims that don't come forward.

Empathy is lost on conservatives, they don't have the capacity and will never understand.

 

[River]

It's sad to me that most of y'all can't admit this particular allegation stinks to high heaven. I have looked up to (most of) you, as I learned skepticism here, on this very forum. I sure don't see many skeptics here anymore though.

Noticed this also upon my return. What was once a hub for critical thinking seems more of a hub for SJW now IMHO.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

It's very possible that the allegations are false or cannot be proven. I don't understand why the Republicans just don't have the FBI investigate to confirm that their is no credible evidence to support the allegations. I suspect that they are afraid of what the FBI will find though.

Also, the sexual misconduct allegations are just another set of problems with Kavanaugh. Brett IS guilty of perjury and misuse of stolen documents. There is also the fact that the GOP is hiding most of his legal writings and records. Everything about this Kavanaugh confirmation process smells of corruption and cover-up.

Why don't all of these women go to their local police like everyone else who has a crime committed against them?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why don't all of these women go to their local police like everyone else who has a crime committed against them?

Don't know, don't care. The FBI is the best, and quickest way to investigate the allegations.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's sad to me that most of y'all can't admit this particular allegation stinks to high heaven. I have looked up to (most of) you, as I learned skepticism here, on this very forum. I sure don't see many skeptics here anymore though.

Noticed this also upon my return. What was once a hub for critical thinking seems more of a hub for SJW now IMHO.

Perhaps you can find a forum full of critical thinkers who agree with you? That's what you're actually complaining about.

Here's the critical thinking position: Let's see all the evidence and then follow the procedure of letting the Senate decide on the nomination.

Are you both cool with that? If so, then count one lefty on your side. If you want to see some of the evidence and not the rest (like the administration's refusal to release thousands of pages of background material to the Senate committee) or if you're in agreement with the administration that the FBI doesn't need to be involved, that would seem to indicate that you may possible have a couple of lapses in your own critical thinking.

What's the rush? What important cases are being held up while waiting for the lockstep partisan vote. Supreme Courts have decided numerous cases with less than full panels seated. Or did nothing go through the courts while the GOP was playing Block That Nom for over 400 days?

Hearings and trials get delayed all the time when new evidence/findings come to light. It's not like you have a window on the calendar for the sowing season of new justices. It ain't like planting wheat.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Kavanaugh's supporters are just upset that his detractors don't require courtroom-level evidence to believe a Trump pick to be a bad person.
This is not a trial, and the Senate can confirm even with proof of Kavanaugh being a rapist.
The only question is how the Senators can convince themselves that they've done enough to pacify female voters - they don't care if Kavanaugh is guilty or not, only if something will stick.

Given the level of evidence Trump supporters require (Trump tweeted it, so it must be true), it seems to me that most of the uproar is about realizing that on some issues anti-Trumpers don't require strong evidence either.