Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[johnny karate]

n


Trial lawyers have an old saying, you never ask a question on cross examination to which you don't already know the answer.

Rachel Mitchell: "Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?"

Dr. Ford: "Never."​

In other news, ex-boyfriend says Dr. Ford coached friend for polygraph, had no fear of flying.

Great. Let me know when the criminal proceedings against all these liars and conspirators will begin.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Breitbart, really?

Whale.to was down for maintenance.

 

[Imhotep]

Breitbart, really?

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Real Clear Investigations is the source, and it is being reported by multiple outlets besides Breitbart.

 

[Cavemonster]

n


Trial lawyers have an old saying, you never ask a question on cross examination to which you don't already know the answer.

Rachel Mitchell: "Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?"

Dr. Ford: "Never."​

In other news: Ex-boyfriend says Dr. Ford coached friend for polygraph, had no fear of flying.

I'm a bit confused.

What I've been hearing from Kavanaugh supporters since this whole thing started is that we shouldn't allow unsubstantiated allegations to influence our decisions. In fact, anonymous allegations were the worst.

And yet here we are with the same folks putting forward this letter as something we need to consider.

Which is it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

We can't consider unsubstantiated claims.

Unsubstantiated claims that claim to disprove the original unsubstantiated claims are holy writ.

Which one is the first unsubstantiated claim depends on which tribe you've pledged allegiance to.

 

[Imhotep]

I'm a bit confused.

What I've been hearing from Kavanaugh supporters since this whole thing started is that we shouldn't allow unsubstantiated allegations to influence our decisions. In fact, anonymous allegations were the worst.

And yet here we are with the same folks putting forward this letter as something we need to consider.

Which is it?

I hope I'm wrong, but it's starting to feel like a bunch of liars on both sides. Maybe they all think it's justified because the Supreme Court is so important? To me the logic would work the other way. It's important that everyone is completely honest because the SC is so important.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I hope I'm wrong, but it's starting to feel like a bunch of liars on both sides. Maybe they all think it's justified because the Supreme Court is so important? To me the logic would work the other way. It's important that everyone is completely honest because the SC is so important.

The problem is this by default turns into a "Both sides are equally bad so my side should win" argument.

One "side" still has to get their way when all this is said and done and right now a stalemate means a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.

 

[carlitos]

Because he was still a Democratic nominee, not a Republican one, and because that sort of personal attack has so far been a tool of the left, not the right. You can expect that to change if this attack on Kavanaugh succeeds.

Given that you were thinking of the wrong judge, would you like to change your answer now?

 

[Segnosaur]

And you forgot to mention 3) rapists deserve to be on the supreme court. (You didn't say so explicitly but I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh supporters believe that.)

Kavanaugh wasn't accused of rape by Ford.

Attempted rape. Still doesn't look good in my opinion. Although Kavanaugh supporters think its quite ok.

And most of his supporters think he didn't rape or sexually assault anyone.

That explains all the Kavanaugh supporters like the woman who told her daughter that "innocent groping" was A-Ok.

You can think they are wrong, and you can even think they are wrong because of partisan bias, but it's simply not a serious accusation to say they want a rapist on the Supreme Court

The preponderance of evidence suggests Kavanaugh tried to rape someone. Kavanaugh supporters want him on the supreme court.

Ergo, Kavanaugh supporters want a (attempted) rapist on the supreme court.

The fact that Kavanaugh are so eager to cram this nomination through without considering all the evidence or seeing that he's properly investigated means that at best they are willfully ignorant, at worst they know he's guilty as sin but want him installed before everyone else can see how dirty he is.

Re: Why wasn't Gorsuch attacked the same way....

Because he was still a Democratic nominee, not a Republican one

Ummmm.... What?

Gorsuch was nominated by Trump, who is a REPUBLICAN. He was confirmed by a majority of Republicans in the senate. He was a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association. His views are closely aligned with social conservatives. So what exactly makes him a 'democratic nominee'?

...and because that sort of personal attack has so far been a tool of the left, not the right.

I think the almost constant investigations into Clinton over Bengazi, as well as the Swift Boat Veterans who attacked Kerry (a group which claimed independence yet had close ties to the republicans) suggest that character assassination based on either false or non-existent information is actually quite common on the political right.

 

[Ziggurat]

The preponderance of evidence suggests Kavanaugh tried to rape someone.

No, it doesn't.

Ummmm.... What?

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking Garland. My previous reply on that part makes no sense.

As for why Gorsuch wasn't treated that way, well, one reason is because delays wouldn't have changed anything then, but they might now.

 

[Imhotep]

The problem is this by default turns into a "Both sides are equally bad so my side should win" argument.

One "side" still has to get their way when all this is said and done and right now a stalemate means a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.

Well, I include Kavanaugh in the list of people that have been, let's call it - disingenuous. So my "side" is to be against his confirmation.

It's kind of like the old saying that if two kids fight over a toy, neither should get it.

 

[Cavemonster]

I hope I'm wrong, but it's starting to feel like a bunch of liars on both sides. Maybe they all think it's justified because the Supreme Court is so important? To me the logic would work the other way. It's important that everyone is completely honest because the SC is so important.

I have not entirely ruled out the possibility that Ford is making a false allegation, but I still find it far more unlikely to be the case.

There are a relatively small number of people who might conceivably have been in a situation to make such an allegation without it being somewhat easily falsifiable.

That someone would be within that group, and have documented their assault with a therapist years before. That such a person could have a respectable career and life and be willing to risk their entire reputation, their safety and very possibly their career and freedom on a lie is a tall order.

I don't think it's impossible that someone would make up such a lie, but that all those elements would coalesce in someone willing to risk their whole world on such a lie is an improbable case.

That Kavanaugh would lie to protect his career is not improbable. That an anonymous stranger or even an actual ex boyfriend would lie under cover of anonymity is also not improbable.

I do hope that Ford is being candid. A possibility certainly exists that Ford is lying entirely, or telling the truth about the central claim but being dishonest in some of the surrounding questions.

Personally I don't think Ford's claim ought to matter anymore. As Kavanaugh's collegue recently wrote, his temperment and partisanship should already disqualify him. If Ford is found in any documented untruth, it will likely send Kavanaugh sailing through.

 

[Planigale]

What I find interesting is that Trump's sister is a federal judge. She had what I recognise as a good background to be a judge a long period as a federal attorney with progression, then junior and more senior judicial positions. Despite being a Republican she was nominated by Obama to her final post. She seems to have been a good professional with no criticisms of her behaviour.

The contrast with the current subject is huge. Little experience as a lawyer prior to appointment (I am not sure the Whitehouse appointments really count), little judicial experience and seriously dubious judgements. Frankly Trump's sister would be a better choice.

 

[Joecool]

n


Trial lawyers have an old saying, you never ask a question on cross examination to which you don't already know the answer.

Rachel Mitchell: "Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?"

Dr. Ford: "Never."​

In other news: Ex-boyfriend says Dr. Ford coached friend for polygraph, had no fear of flying.

They didn’t quite get it all scrubbed from cyberspace quickly enough. High School yearbooks from Holton Arms preparatory school (Bethesda, Maryland, 1982-1985) purportedly show Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey-Ford as a wild party girl in a wild party era, with yearbook passages by classmates bragging of spending the night with adult men during “Beach Week” and enjoying male strippers in G-strings for “Sweet 16” birthday parties.

http://www.shadolsonshow.com/2018/0...n-promiscuity-54-sex-partners-before-college/

 

[Imhotep]

I have not entirely ruled out the possibility that Ford is making a false allegation, but I still find it far more unlikely to be the case.

There are a relatively small number of people who might conceivably have been in a situation to make such an allegation without it being somewhat easily falsifiable.

That someone would be within that group, and have documented their assault with a therapist years before. That such a person could have a respectable career and life and be willing to risk their entire reputation, their safety and very possibly their career and freedom on a lie is a tall order.

I don't think it's impossible that someone would make up such a lie, but that all those elements would coalesce in someone willing to risk their whole world on such a lie is an improbable case.

That Kavanaugh would lie to protect his career is not improbable. That an anonymous stranger or even an actual ex boyfriend would lie under cover of anonymity is also not improbable.

I do hope that Ford is being candid. A possibility certainly exists that Ford is lying entirely, or telling the truth about the central claim but being dishonest in some of the surrounding questions.

Personally I don't think Ford's claim ought to matter anymore. As Kavanaugh's collegue recently wrote, his temperment and partisanship should already disqualify him. If Ford is found in any documented untruth, it will likely send Kavanaugh sailing through.

I agree that it's probable her claim of Kavanaugh attacking her is true. But I think she took some liberties in other areas; perhaps the fear of flying, the recollections of who she told, and when, etc.

 

[Joecool]

One friend, (identified briefly on social media) alleges Blasey-Ford (Holton Arms, Class of 1984) suffered no memory loss whatsoever in describing and bragging about her sexual conquests and paramours, identifying 54 sexual partners between her junior year of high school and enrollment in college. The social media post (below) claims Blasey-Ford previously allegedly admitted to being an alcoholic in high school and regretted, “being so easy,” in high school. She is alleged to have told the best friend that she had 54 sexual partners between 11th grade and enrollment in college. The post also identified Blasey-Ford as a liberal activist with an obvious sensitivity to Supreme Court ideology, once writing on social media, “Scalia-types must be banned from law!”

http://www.shadolsonshow.com/2018/0...n-promiscuity-54-sex-partners-before-college/

 

[johnny karate]

I'm waiting for Joecool to ask what Dr. Ford was wearing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's kind of like the old saying that if two kids fight over a toy, neither should get it.

Well the problem is right now there are no adults in this metaphor just two kids fighting over a toy except the toy is a sexual predator on the Supreme Court and the kids are one of if not the most powerful governing bodies in the world.

There is no neutral. There is no default. There is no status quo. There is no "don't make a decision" to invoke here. Either a sexual predator goes on the Supreme Court or he doesn't.

 

[Cavemonster]

But I think she took some liberties in other areas; perhaps the fear of flying, the recollections of who she told, and when, etc.

It's possible, but I don't think yet probable.

The supposed inconsistencies with her fear of flying brought up before match my brother's experience with his fear of flying. He's had a serious fear of planes since 9-11, but he flies at least once a year for work or vacations. If he had to do something that was otherwise already very stressful, he would greatly prefer to drive if possible.

Again, I don't find the letter too compelling.

I very much agree with you that a lot is at stake, so I hope she took no liberties. But I also hope she will be given the same benefit of the doubt for unclear memory and poor phrasing under stress that the GOP are ready to extend to their own.

 

[Joecool]

I'm waiting for Joecool to ask what Dr. Ford was wearing.

The link I posted has pictures.