New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[applecorped]

Liberals tell good lies.

 

[Belz...]

Because she's lied about some fundamental aspects of her story.

Her first version of the story (which differed in key details from her latest) was told to her therapist. She claims that her insistence on installing another door on her house for safety is what prompted her to revisit that past trauma. But that's a lie, and renovation records prove it. The second door was added to the house so that the previous owner, who did private therapy at the house, could continue to use part of the house to hold those therapy sessions. It provided a separate entrance to that space so the business could operate independently from the rest of the house. It had nothing to do with her alleged claustrophobia.

Ok. Is that really a fundamental aspect of her story?

 

[Lurch]

Because she's lied about some fundamental aspects of her story.

Her first version of the story (which differed in key details from her latest) was told to her therapist. She claims that her insistence on installing another door on her house for safety is what prompted her to revisit that past trauma. But that's a lie, and renovation records prove it. The second door was added to the house so that the previous owner, who did private therapy at the house, could continue to use part of the house to hold those therapy sessions. It provided a separate entrance to that space so the business could operate independently from the rest of the house. It had nothing to do with her alleged claustrophobia.

She nonetheless welcomed a full investigation, while Kavanaugh could not bring himself to say the same. And he *knew* the GOP had his back.

Where doubt remains in a he said/she said, I tend to lean toward the party who fullsomely desires a full investigation over the weasel who clearly does not. There's meaningful weight to be apportioned based on that single element.

 

[Lurch]

Ok. Is that really a fundamental aspect of her story?

Not to me. Not when other *witnesses* have not been interviewed at all. There are outstanding questions surrounding the *event* itself that await investigative scrutiny.

The Kav Krowd would pick at any peripheral desiderata that suggests inconsistency with the accuser, and blithely overlook even worse deficiencies in their guy.

 

[Cabbage]

Because she's lied about some fundamental aspects of her story.

Her first version of the story (which differed in key details from her latest) was told to her therapist. She claims that her insistence on installing another door on her house for safety is what prompted her to revisit that past trauma. But that's a lie, and renovation records prove it. The second door was added to the house so that the previous owner, who did private therapy at the house, could continue to use part of the house to hold those therapy sessions. It provided a separate entrance to that space so the business could operate independently from the rest of the house. It had nothing to do with her alleged claustrophobia.

No, those renovation records do not prove that's a lie. Proving a lie is a rather heavy burden: You need to prove the person knowingly told an untruth with an intent to deceive.

There's often more than one reason an action (such as adding a door) is taken. While adding "a separate entrance to that space so the business could operate independently from the rest of the house" might have been the ultimate catalyst, that's not mutually exclusive with other reasons, such as claustrophobia.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok. Is that really a fundamental aspect of her story?

Yes. It answers a pretty fundamental question: why did she speak up then, and not before?

And it's not the sort of detail that someone should be getting wrong innocently. Or if she is getting details like that about relatively recent events wrong innocently, if she honestly believes false memories, then nothing about her memory of the alleged events decades earlier can be trusted either. It really destroys her credibility on all of this. Couple that with changes in key details of her story of the attack (such as the date and the location of the alleged events), plus the lack of anyone who she claims was there saying any such party even happened, and it should set off warning klaxons that her accusations cannot be given any weight.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, those renovation records do not prove that's a lie. Proving a lie is a rather heavy burden: You need to prove the person knowingly told an untruth with an intent to deceive.

OK, so let's explore the alternative: she believes it, even though it's not true. What does that say about the reliability of her memory of the alleged attack?

 

[Belz...]

Yes. It answers a pretty fundamental question: why did she speak up then, and not before?

And it's not the sort of detail that someone should be getting wrong innocently. Or if she is getting details like that about relatively recent events wrong innocently, if she honestly believes false memories, then nothing about her memory of the alleged events decades earlier can be trusted either. It really destroys her credibility on all of this. Couple that with changes in key details of her story of the attack (such as the date and the location of the alleged events), plus the lack of anyone who she claims was there saying any such party even happened, and it should set off warning klaxons that her accusations cannot be given any weight.

As Cabbage noted, however, and you snipped out, the two reasons are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Ziggurat]

As Cabbage noted, however, and you snipped out, the two reasons are not mutually exclusive.

Her narrative was more extensive than one word. And no, it isn't compatible with property records on her main residence, including the 4 year time gap between when the renovation permit was applied for and when she started seeing her therapist. Nor is the lack of any such additional exits on their second property.

 

[Cabbage]

OK, so let's explore the alternative: she believes it, even though it's not true. What does that say about the reliability of her memory of the alleged attack?

I've already addressed this, in the very post of mine you responded to. Of course, you deleted the part to which I now refer.

Yet another example proving me right when I accuse you of being disingenuous--That's three times just on this page alone!

 

[Ziggurat]

I've already addressed this, in the very post of mine you responded to. Of course, you deleted the part to which I now refer.

Yet another example proving me right when I accuse you of being disingenuous--That's three times just on this page alone!

It's funny how you bend over backwards to make excuses for Ford, but try to use the worst possible interpretations for Kavanaugh.

 

[ahhell]

Yes, that's simple and direct, which is good because now we can examine it.

I never said it did make Republicans right. But the claim went beyond Republicans having done something bad. The claim was basically that Republicans were doing something uniquely bad. But they aren't. This is the normal slime of politics. You don't have to like it, you can certainly object to it, but it isn't new, and both sides have been doing it forever. So there's nothing to panic about.

Its not even that slimy really. Assuming a political party exists for reasons other than just gaining power, then there are naturally some issues that you have to be onboard with in order to be a member, it would be quite natural and reasonable for the parties to condemn members who stray to far. Would you expect the CPUSA to not have a problem with a member who suported, IDK, private ownership of the means of production?

 

[Cabbage]

It's funny how you bend over backwards to make excuses for Ford, but try to use the worst possible interpretations for Kavanaugh.

I invite you to quote an example of me doing this.

I have actual evidence of Kavanaugh lying: Testimony of his high school friends.

Do you have similar such evidence for Ford?

 

[Ziggurat]

I invite you to quote an example of me doing this.

I have actual evidence of Kavanaugh lying: Testimony of his high school friends.

Do you have similar such evidence for Ford?

Yes, property records.

See, Ford didn't just say she wanted a door installed because she felt unsafe. She said that her husband didn't understand why she wanted a door installed. But why would he not understand why she wanted a door installed if the purpose was to allow part of the house to be used for a business? That's a pretty damned obvious reason, one he would have known about. So even if she had a second reason for wanting the door, her husband wouldn't have been confused about installing the door because he would have known about the first reason. But he supposedly was confused, and his confusion was a central part of what led her to introspection and digging up this past trauma.

And it's all bull ****.

 

[tyr_13]

She nonetheless welcomed a full investigation, while Kavanaugh could not bring himself to say the same. And he *knew* the GOP had his back.

Where doubt remains in a he said/she said, I tend to lean toward the party who fullsomely desires a full investigation over the weasel who clearly does not. There's meaningful weight to be apportioned based on that single element.

I think you've done a pretty good job of highlighting the important points that this deserved a fair and decently deep investigation AND that such an investigation was prevented by the White House interference.

As much as some want to say 'this new testimony doesn't PROVE the accusation' want to skip it, even saying that shows that there was fairly easily discoverable testimony that was not perused by the official investigation. There was in fact people actively trying to contact law enforcement to give more testimony who were just ignored. Such a thing is not just dereliction of due diligence, it's actively interfering in it.

What I don't understand is why some of you are arguing with Trump allies about this point. Sure, they're trying to focus on another point further up the chain of investigation, but they're not even displaying good faith in their care for that. That is to say, they don't even care if you did convince them of that because you would first have to get them to care about sexual assault by Republican powerful in the first place.

Even if you could show that an investigation was warranted, and that there is good evidence, and that the person even did it, you'd have to get them to care enough to hold their people accountable. They just do not agree to that. You could have audio recordings of Kavanaugh bragging about his sexual assaults and they would not be willing to hold him accountable or pay an ounce of political cost for it. They thought Moore sexually assaulted teen girls and they still supported him. Even after you convince them that these men did sexually assault someone, you have to convince them that that is worth doing anything about.

They don't care that much about sexual assault. Or national security. Or basic human decency. Or namecalling. Or a whole host of things they simply refuse to have any political accountability at all for.

They care far more about having power and hurting liberals than anything else in politics. If you can't convince them to change that, all other discussion is pretty pointless. Now, I'm not saying that can't be done, but arguing details of the specif case won't do that. Also, there are other non-Trump allies where such discussion are useful. What I am saying is that there is no reason to believe the points Trumpers pretend to care about at any given time are actually things they care about.

 

[Ziggurat]

They thought Moore sexually assaulted teen girls and they still supported him.

Name someone in this thread who thought Moore sexually assaulted a teen girl and still supported him.

 

[ahhell]

If anyone prevented a full investigation it was Diane Fienstein, who appears to have sat on the accusation for weeks until days before the confirmation, someone in her staff decided to reveal the accusation publicly. I'm curious as to why she didn't want a full investigation.

 

[Cabbage]

Yes, property records.


See, Ford didn't just say she wanted a door installed because she felt unsafe. She said that her husband didn't understand why she wanted a door installed. But why would he not understand why she wanted a door installed if the purpose was to allow part of the house to be used for a business? That's a pretty damned obvious reason, one he would have known about. So even if she had a second reason for wanting the door, her husband wouldn't have been confused about installing the door because he would have known about the first reason. But he supposedly was confused, and his confusion was a central part of what led her to introspection and digging up this past trauma.

And it's all bull ****.

Have you got a cite for that? Ever since the investigation, sure, I've heard stories about the door issue, but I've never really pursued them. I've been trying to find a cite myself. For example, I found this:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...second-front-door-that-triggered-the-n2525474

In that (which I quickly read over just now) I see references to the door being used by renters (Google interns) and to Ford operating a business in the home. What I haven't found is a detailed chronology of when the door was installed, when was the room rented out, when was it used for a business, etc. And I'm not sure this is really material to the Kavanaugh investigation, anyway: It's sometimes hard to remember chronological order of certain incidental events. If we now declare that this memory issue taints her ability to be a reliable witness then I'd be willing to bet that absolutely every witness in history shares the same taint.

Now, regarding Kavanaugh: There are multiple accusations of him lying in the investigation. Let's take the one you scoff at: Boof. You say people won't care about that. Sorry, but that is not for you to judge (yet another past example of your disingenuity).

To the contrary, I claim he had a clear motive for lying: Under the accusation of perpetrating a sexual assault in high school, he was attempting to paint a picture of himself as being an innocent virgin child who liked to have a few beers now and then. In order to do so he had to pretend ignorance or even lie about references to promiscuous behavior (such as "boof" and "devil's triangle" to protect his image against the accusation.

Indeed, his own friends from high school have told us precisely what those words meant to their circle of friends back then.

And yet you scoff and dismiss. Why? What justification do you have? Don't give me this nonsense that there's evidence of "boof" being used to mean fart. His own friends have told us their meaning. You, Zig, are the one "bending over backwards" to make excuses for Kavanaugh.

I want you to address this. No, you don't have to. I can't force you to. But I've noticed your tendency to pick and choose which parts of my posts you respond to. You did it earlier today. You try to find the weakest point and focus on that and pretend like the other points I made simply do not exist--Yet another example of your cowardly disingenuity.

 

[Hevneren]

Yes, property records.

See, Ford didn't just say she wanted a door installed because she felt unsafe. She said that her husband didn't understand why she wanted a door installed. But why would he not understand why she wanted a door installed if the purpose was to allow part of the house to be used for a business? That's a pretty damned obvious reason, one he would have known about. So even if she had a second reason for wanting the door, her husband wouldn't have been confused about installing the door because he would have known about the first reason. But he supposedly was confused, and his confusion was a central part of what led her to introspection and digging up this past trauma.

And it's all bull ****.

I have to agree. The front door story doesn't seem to make sense, but appears to be retrofitted today's narrative.

 

[Cabbage]

Im not trying to deflect anything; I’m just trying to engage you on your arguments.

Hey, what happened to ya, bro? You ask me a bunch of questions, claiming you're just trying to engage my on my arguments. I patiently answer and then you just........ghost on me. Feels kind of rude, to tell you the truth. I thought we had something, man; I thought we had a debate going. I thought you were going to show me how I hadn't "thought everything through".

I miss you.