Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Foolmewunz]

In all your other examples, the claims were corroborated. Strange how you failed to notice that this separates them all from Ford’s claim.

Interesting standards of proof. The "corroboration" in those other cases consists of what? And was there a "first" claimant in those cases? Did said "first claimant" receive your immediate acceptance or did you wait like a good skeptic for more evidence. And that "more evidence" consists of? Why, more claimants. There are no fingerprints, gunshot residue, DNA evidence, fiber evidence, etc.... just claimants.

Yet you say those were "corroborated"? How? By volume of claimants? 19 people have accused Trump of sexual indiscretions. We only have "one" claim against Kavanaugh? Or only "one who's testified at the Republican Committee's discretion" with others in the wings whose lack of testimony you are now using to say "It's just one claim and hardly proven".


ETA: Curses. acbytesla beat me to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, they weren't. There were simply so many similar stories.

You are wrong. There was lots of corroboration.

 

[acbytesla]

You are wrong. There was lots of corroboration.

Not for every story.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
1. She told her therapist in 2012 about the assault and described him as going to an elitist all boys school who was now a "highly respected and high-ranking member of society in Washington". Odd how that just happens to describe Kavanaugh.

2. Dr. Ford's husband says she told him it was Brett Kavanaugh in 2012. Another odd cowinkydink.

3. She told 3 friends on 3 different occasion between 2013 and 2017 of the attack. One said B-F said her attacker was now a federal judge in D.C. The two other friends said B-F said her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh.

4. Ford named Judge and Smyth as being at the party. Ford's own calendar proves he partied with them and they were part of his crowd.

5. Judge's book describes 'Bart O'Kavanaugh' as a drunk who ralphed (in the true use of the word and not the silliness BK tried to peddle) and passed out in a car after drinking too much.

Yep, there is absolutely nothing to support Ford's story. Not a single thing.

Three of your items are just Ford’s own story. A story can’t corroborate itself, and it’s changed over time as well (and not just by filling in Kavanaugh’s name). Your other two items are not actually about Ford’s claimed assault, and therefore do not corroborate it.

ETA: but while we are on the subject of odd cowinkydinks, in 2012 Kavanaugh’s name was publicly floated as a likely Supreme Court pick for Romney if he won.

Sigh. Which three are "just Ford's own story"?

1. There are therapist notes corroborating this.
2. This is from Ford's husband, not Ford.
3. These statements are from three friends of Ford's, not Ford.
4. She named the other boys and Keyser in her sworn statement. If it never happened then Ford would have been mighty stupid to provide names of people who she knew could only discount her claim.
5. This was from Judge. Ford had nothing to do with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting standards of proof. The "corroboration" in those other cases consists of what? And was there a "first" claimant in those cases? Did said "first claimant" receive your immediate acceptance or did you wait like a good skeptic for more evidence. And that "more evidence" consists of? Why, more claimants. There are no fingerprints, gunshot residue, DNA evidence, fiber evidence, etc.... just claimants.

Yet you say those were "corroborated"? How? By volume of claimants? 19 people have accused Trump of sexual indiscretions. We only have "one" claim against Kavanaugh? Or only "one who's testified at the Republican Committee's discretion" with others in the wings whose lack of testimony you are now using to say "It's just one claim and hardly proven".


ETA: Curses. acbytesla beat me to it.

You are wrong. Cosby, for example, admitted to giving quaaludes to women and having sex with them. That is very significant corroboration. Other forms of corroboration (such as witnesses that confirm the victim and perpetrator met on the day and place of the alleged events) are also quite common. It isn’t simple a matter of the number of accusers, though that too is relevant, since Kavanaugh only has one actual accuser.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sigh. Which three are "just Ford's own story"?

1. There are therapist notes corroborating this.
2. This is from Ford's husband, not Ford.
3. These statements are from three friends of Ford's, not Ford.

Those items confirm Ford has been telling this story. They do not corroborate the contents of the story. Telling a lie to many people doesn’t make it true.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not for every story.

Doesn’t have to be for every story. But it has to be for at least one, doesn’t it?

 

[Stacyhs]

You are wrong. Cosby, for example, admitted to giving quaaludes to women and having sex with them. That is very significant corroboration. Other forms of corroboration (such as witnesses that confirm the victim and perpetrator met on the day and place of the alleged events) are also quite common. It isn’t simple a matter of the number of accusers, though that too is relevant, since Kavanaugh only has one actual accuser.

He actually has two: Ramirez and Ford.

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting standards of proof. The "corroboration" in those other cases consists of what? And was there a "first" claimant in those cases? Did said "first claimant" receive your immediate acceptance or did you wait like a good skeptic for more evidence. And that "more evidence" consists of? Why, more claimants. There are no fingerprints, gunshot residue, DNA evidence, fiber evidence, etc.... just claimants.

Yet you say those were "corroborated"? How? By volume of claimants? 19 people have accused Trump of sexual indiscretions. We only have "one" claim against Kavanaugh? Or only "one who's testified at the Republican Committee's discretion" with others in the wings whose lack of testimony you are now using to say "It's just one claim and hardly proven".


ETA: Curses. acbytesla beat me to it.

Not a race. Your post was a definite enhancement to mine.

Zig seems to be wilfully obtuse about this. Few people commit sexual assaults publicly where there can be corroborating witnesses. This is why sexual assault cases are the most difficult to prosecute. Harvey Weinstein successfully got away with his behavior for the last 25 years. Cosby even longer. Only when dozens of women came forward did authorities pay much if any attention. You don't think women don't realize this and feel a sense of futility and take a why even bother attitude?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe Ziggy is right. Ford decided years ago to build a story about Kavanaugh knowing that he would someday be a SCOTUS nominee...........

 

[Stacyhs]

Sigh. Which three are "just Ford's own story"?

1. There are therapist notes corroborating this.
2. This is from Ford's husband, not Ford.
3. These statements are from three friends of Ford's, not Ford.
4. She named the other boys and Keyser in her sworn statement. If it never happened then Ford would have been mighty stupid to provide names of people who she knew could only discount her claim.
5. This was from Judge. Ford had nothing to do with it.

Those items confirm Ford has been telling this story. They do not corroborate the contents of the story. Telling a lie to many people doesn’t make it true.

So you think it's probable or likely that Ford has been planning on taking down Kavanaugh since at least 2012 in revenge for some attack that never happened in the first place? She set a plan in motion in 2012 by going to a therapist, lying to that therapist and to her husband about Kavanaugh, and made sure to tell three different friends about K's non-existent attack over a period of several years? Okaaaaaaaay.

That belongs in Conspiracy Central.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That belongs in Conspiracy Central.

Conspiracy theories are very popular with Republicans.

 

[Ziggurat]

He actually has two: Ramirez and Ford.

You want to count Ramirez? Ok, but she’s got even less credibility.

 

[acbytesla]

You want to count Ramirez? Ok, but she’s got even less credibility.

Why? Because she has a Latin name and therefore doesn't count?

 

[Stacyhs]

You want to count Ramirez? Ok, but she’s got even less credibility.

It's not a matter of whether I want to count Ramirez or not. The fact is Deborah Ramirez is a second accuser of Kav's. What you claimed is factually incorrect.

Why do you discount Ramirez's credibility so soon? Seems to me you're just waiving off anything that doesn't support your bias.

A former Yale classmate attempting to corroborate Deborah Ramirez‘s sexual misconduct allegation against Brett Kavanaugh is reportedly being ignored by the FBI. This alleged investigatory neglect is now being criticized as the much ballyhooed law enforcement agency conducts a background investigation in miniature of the embattled Supreme Court nominee.

According to a Sunday night report by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow in the The New Yorker, the classmate–still anonymous as of this writing–has reached out to the FBI on several occasions only to be frustrated and ignored at every turn.

The classmate in question is attempting to offer their own recollection of having heard about the incident in question within hours–or a day or two at most–after it happened. The New Yorker piece notes:


The classmate, who asked to remain anonymous, recalled hearing about Ramirez’s allegation either the night it happened or during the following two days. The classmate said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he had heard an account that was practically identical to Ramirez’s, thirty-five years ago, but the two had never spoken about it.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...on-against-kavanaugh-were-ignored-by-the-fbi/

 

[Sideroxylon]

You are wrong. Cosby, for example, admitted to giving quaaludes to women and having sex with them. That is very significant corroboration. Other forms of corroboration (such as witnesses that confirm the victim and perpetrator met on the day and place of the alleged events) are also quite common. It isn’t simple a matter of the number of accusers, though that too is relevant, since Kavanaugh only has one actual accuser.

A tremendous mistake. The lesson is of course: deny, deny, obfuscate and lie.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? Because she has a Latin name and therefore doesn't count?

No, because she’s been directly contradicted by multiple people, and couldn’t even name Kavanaugh until after being massaged by the Dems for several days to refresh her memory. But nice try with accusing me of racism, that’s the standard go-to for desperate leftists.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, because she’s been directly contradicted by multiple people, and couldn’t even name Kavanaugh until after being massaged by the Dems for several days to refresh her memory. But nice try with accusing me of racism, that’s the standard go-to for desperate leftists.

Evidence of either of these allegations?

That same classmate also noted that multiple other Yale classmates from the time had come forward to him personally with information said to corroborate Ramirez’s account–but that they had not been contacted by the FBI either. Currently unclear, however, is the extent to which these additional classmates have reached out to the FBI with their alleged stories, if at all.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...on-against-kavanaugh-were-ignored-by-the-fbi/

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's fascinating how much investigation Kavanaugh-supporters have already done: they know all the facts, unlike the FBI which will need a few more days.

It seems clear to me that the GOP is happy to keep the investigation open because they think it will rally the base in the Midterms under the narrative of "Us vs. Nasty Women accusing every men who ever gave them a compliment".

 

[Lurch]

In my previous post I briefly outlined the detrimental omissions in the rushed and restrictive hearing last Thursday. Zig challenged my little list.

The most important witness who should have been questioned under oath is Judge, who Ford says was the third person *in the room* with she and Kav. But the Rs were content to satisfy themselves with a weak denial of "can't remember" through his lawyer, after which Judge skipped town to hide out at a beach house.

As to documents that could have been requested for review, Ford's therapist's notes regarding the 2012 sessions in which the assault was mentioned come to mind. (Let's leave out for the moment the tens of thousands of docs the Bush admin stated were OK to hand over, but which the Trump admin clamped a seal over.)

My overarching point is that it's futile to convene a hearing without first trying *sincerely* to have the fullest information. *IF* the truth is desired to find. The Rs were deathly scared of this, hence their light-speed headlong rush to ramrod through their already known to be shady boy, Kav.