New SCOTUS Judge

[Fudbucker]

A lot of people ask variations on the question, "Why would she come forward if she were not telling the truth?" They cite the problems it causes for her life. The attention. The anonymous threats. The attacks in the press. Why would anyone put themselves through that if she wasn't telling the truth? This, they say, is a reason she ought to be believed. She has no incentive to lie.

It's the wrong question to ask.

The correct question is more like this: There are 300 million people in the United States. Is there one among those 300 million who would be willing to make up a story to defame him, and whose life experience could make that defamation plausible?

When looked at it that way, it becomes clear that we can't draw any inference from the irrationality of making the accusation. When looked at as whether there is one person in the United States who would do such a thing, it's clear that this is not wildly improbable that someone might lie about it. Yes, it would be irrational to invent a false story, but, among all the people in the country who have interacted with Brett Kavanaugh in his life is there at least one person sufficiently irrational to invent a story that might prevent him from being confirmed? There are plenty of irrational people.


The story she tells is certainly plausible. However, the possibility that the story is false is also certainly plausible.

So how does this work? In 2012 she decides to lie and tell this same essential story to a therapist on the off chance that Kavanaugh someday gets nominated for a SCOTUS position, so she can lay the groundwork for a plausible accusation down the road? Do you know how implausible that is? When has something like that ever happened before?

 

[The Big Dog]

That she provided under oath?

And that reminds me, in case you missed it and weren’t simply ignoring the question: Post #1155

Dr. Ford has not testified under oath, and you have not hand waved away her testimony. Hmm.

What is really interesting is the Washington Post printed her lie... er, explanation, that the thrapist’s note that there were four attackers was wrong because there were four boys at the party. But there were not four boys.

Hmm, this story is completely falling apart.

Did post 1155 have to do with Leland Ingham Keyser?

 

[The Big Dog]

So how does this work? In 2012 she decides to lie and tell this same essential story to a therapist on the off chance that Kavanaugh someday gets nominated for a SCOTUS position? Do you know how implausible that is?

Boom! Rule of so.

In 2012, she said she was a party with four boys.

The three boys and a girl she identified disagree.

 

[Fudbucker]

Boom! Rule of so.

In 2012, she said she was a party with four boys.

The three boys and a girl she identified disagree.

Do you know what the "rule of so" is?

 

[Leftus]

Which is why there should be an investigation. Relevant people questioned. And especially those whom we know of, including Mr. Judge, questioned under oath.

I've got no problem with an investigation. I just don't know what can be gained from such an activity given the lack of any actual evidence that can be produced given the time between the alleged actions and the allegations.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you know what the "rule of so" is?

a cautionary rule.

anything about the fact that the last witness contradicted her and showed that her therapist note ruse was total bull ******

 

[Fudbucker]

a cautionary rule.

anything about the fact that the last witness contradicted her and showed that her therapist note ruse was total bull ******

What contradiction?

Are you now suggesting Ford told her therapist a phony story in 2012 on the off-chance she could ruin this guy's chance for higher office at some later date?

 

[The Big Dog]

What contradiction?

Are you now suggesting Ford told her therapist a phony story in 2012 on the off-chance she could ruin this guy's chance for higher office at some later date?

I have explained that she told her therapist in 2012 a tale, that did not mention Kavanaugh, and in 2018 is telling a different tale. This should be totally obvious at this point. She said that the therapist was wrong, there were not four people in the room, there were four boys at the party.

There were not four boys at the party, so her whole therapist story is completely falling apart at the seams.

This is obvious.

 

[Fudbucker]

I have explained that she told her therapist in 2012 a tale, that did not mention Kavanaugh, and in 2018 is telling a different tale.

It is not a materially different story.

This should be totally obvious at this point. She said that the therapist was wrong, there were not four people in the room, there were four boys at the party.

It is possible for therapist's notes to be mistaken. The story she's telling now is essentially the same one she told the therapist in 2012.

There were not four boys at the party, so her whole therapist story is completely falling apart at the seams.

And what were you saying about a contradiction?

 

[The Big Dog]

It is not a materially different story.


It is possible for therapist's notes to be mistaken. The story she's telling now is essentially the same one she told the therapist in 2012.



And what were you saying about a contradiction?

Did you really just roll your eyes at the fact that the explanation for why her therapists note was wrong has just completely fallen apart? That is remarkable.

Therapist note: four boys were in the room, no mention of BK
The note was wrong, there were two in the room, and four boys at the party.
There were not four boys at the party.
Hmmm...

 

[AnonyMoose]

How come nobody ever questions (read: interrogate and attack) the integrity and moral character of the victims of catholic priest rape/molestations... all of whom also haven't come forward with their stories until 20, 30, 40 years later ?

 

[Fudbucker]

Did you really just roll your eyes at the fact that the explanation for why her therapists note was wrong has just completely fallen apart? That is remarkable.

Therapist note: four boys were in the room, no mention of BK
The note was wrong, there were two in the room, and four boys at the party.
There were not four boys at the party.
Hmmm...

Edited to remove insult.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

How come nobody ever questions (read: interrogate and attack) the integrity and moral character of the victims of catholic priest rape/molestations... all of whom also haven't come forward with their stories until 20, 30, 40 years later ?

You haven't read the Pennsylvania report, have you?
Attacking the victims was part of the Churches playbook.

 

[Meadmaker]

So how does this work? In 2012 she decides to lie and tell this same essential story to a therapist on the off chance that Kavanaugh someday gets nominated for a SCOTUS position, so she can lay the groundwork for a plausible accusation down the road? Do you know how implausible that is? When has something like that ever happened before?

ETA: What you are doing is the very thing my post was talking about. You are taking Ford as being a single individual, and asking whether that single individual could do this. The correct question to ask is whether there could exist someone who could do this.

As for the specifics of your questions, there's so many assertions within those questions that it simply isn't worth trying to address them.

 

[AnonyMoose]

You haven't read the Pennsylvania report, have you?
Attacking the victims was part of the Churches playbook.

Well then they're obviously not as good at it as the republicans, because I certainly don't see any 'slut shaming' or 'spanish-style inquisitions' being plastered all over the airwaves 24 hours a day like this case has.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why do I bother responding to you? Why does anyone here?

Well I certainly do not understand why you bothered posting that! I mean if you had nothing to say, at all, to contradict the FACTS I just posted, the smart move would have been to post NOTHING.

Instead, you made the curious decision to post the fact that you were not responding to the facts I posted.

 

[Meadmaker]

How come nobody ever questions (read: interrogate and attack) the integrity and moral character of the victims of catholic priest rape/molestations... all of whom also haven't come forward with their stories until 20, 30, 40 years later ?

Actually, that happens frequently.

It doesn't work as a general rule because there are so many different voices, and there is a pile of documentary evidence, and all sorts of corroboration of the victims' stories. If that were the case here, people would believe the accuser.

ETA: And, I'll add, based on the mountain of evidence available, whenever a single individual accuses a single priest, we judge the accusation plausible. However, if the priest denies the allegation, we then ask for some sort of corroboration. We ask for other victims to come forward. We ask for witnesses. We ask for evidence of knowledge from others. We do not automatically assume that because some young people were molested by some priests, that this specific person must have been molested by this specific priest. Before accepting the allegation we ought to demand evidence backing that specific allegation, as opposed to a general statement that something similar has happened to other people.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have to say that looking at the evidence available to us, The Big Dog is not easily contradicted. If you look at her story as told in 2018, the therapist notes from 2012, her story about the therapist notes from 2012, and the statements of the other alleged witnesses in 2018 about the incident from 1982, you can't find a coherent story in there that matches the evidence.

Perhaps more will come out but, based on the evidence available, if we are being generous to Ford we can say that Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt because the accusation is uncorroborated. However, it seems to me that a more objective reading of the evidence leads to an even stronger conclusion, which is that the incident in question did not happen the way that the accuser says it happened.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well then they're obviously not as good at it as the republicans, because I certainly don't see any 'slut shaming' or 'spanish-style inquisitions' being plastered all over the airwaves 24 hours a day like this case has.

I agree that, by and large, Republicans are much better behaved than during the Anita Hill hearing.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Dr. Ford has not testified under oath, and you have not hand waved away her testimony. Hmm.

What about? That’s what you want to go with?

At this stage Dr. Ford has: 1) raised the issue, and 2) said she wants to testify. With that expectation, we give her words an additional measure of authority (for the time being) since lying to Congress, either under oath or not, is a crime. When anyone else in this matter does, or indicates they will do, the same, they’ll receive the same consideration. Until then, as we might all agree, their words aren’t worth much more than the ones I gave at the McDonalds drive-through this morning.

Did post 1155 have to do with Leland Ingham Keyser?

I provided a link. Why not look and see?