Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[theprestige]

In that case someone should get that cleared up with the ABA.

Done and done!

Based on my reading of the ABA's own rules, the committee's position is the official position of the ABA. The president's opinion is personal, and he's being a little sloppy in his communication.

 

[Belz...]

But it does. One of the primary arguments used to support Ford's credibility is that she doesn't have any motive to lie. And that argument is critical for the pro-Ford side because they have absolutely nothing else with which to support her claims, since no witnesses or records or evidence actually support her story.

But that's plainly not true that she has no motive to lie. She does. And while it's true that a motive to lie doesn't mean someone did lie, it does mean that there's basically nothing with which to support Ford's claims.

She has a motive to lie because after the fact people raised money in her name?

 

[carlitos]

The ABA President's letter is on the ABA website, and it contains the standard ABA press release boilerplate text at the end.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/09/aba_president_calls.html

ETA - worth noting that it's written on behalf of the ABA:

The American Bar Association urges the United States Senate Judiciary Committee (and, as appropriate, the full Senate) to conduct a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States only after an appropriate background check into the allegations made by Professor Ford and others is completed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

We make this request because of the ABA’s respect for the rule of law and due process under law.......

 

[Ziggurat]

She has a motive to lie because after the fact people raised money in her name?

She has a motive to lie because it was predictable beforehand that she could make money off of an accusation, and subsequent events have born that out. As I said before, there is precedent. If you're in the least bit surprised by her financial windfall, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[theprestige]

OK, here are two:

1) Do you recognize the bias I mentioned previously?

2) Do you make a habit of being as ridiculously pedantic as you are being now?

LOL

Those look rhetorical to me. But okay, sure:

1) I recognize a lot of biases in myself. I'm sure there are others I don't. What exactly is the bias you perceive in me, that I should recognize here?

2) I generally try to remain somewhere around the general ridiculousness level of the conversation overall. If you try a more serious or reasonable approach, you'll find that I habitually provide a more serious or reasonable response.

Anyway, there's your "answer my question!" cookie. Enjoy it; I don't hand them out very often.

 

[JoeMorgue]

She has a motive to lie because after the fact people raised money in her name?

So the moral is never support anyone in any position because you are just incentivizing lying about being in that position.

 

[Belz...]

She has a motive to lie because it was predictable beforehand that she could make money off of an accusation, and subsequent events have born that out. As I said before, there is precedent. If you're in the least bit surprised by her financial windfall, you haven't been paying attention.

Precedent, sure. But is it really expected or common? I mean, aside from book deals, I suppose?

 

[Belz...]

So the moral is never support anyone in any position because you are just incentivizing lying about being in that position.

Exactly. Before the advent of the internet this sort of thing was much harder to put together, but you can expect support for people who come out like this, and now it's held against the accuser. It's lose-lose for sexual assault victims one way or another.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wait a minute wasn't I a rape apologist in the #MeToo thread? Or was I an SJW in that thread? I don't remember anymore.

 

[Belz...]

Wait a minute wasn't I a rape apologist in the #MeToo thread? Or was I an SJW in that thread? I don't remember anymore.

Dammit, Joe, pick a side already!

 

[smartcooky]

But Ford's own actions are themselves a clear suppression of justice.

Would that be the same "suppression of justice" that the victims of Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris and Larry Nassar are guilty of?

 

[Cabbage]

Those look rhetorical to me. But okay, sure:

1) I recognize a lot of biases in myself. I'm sure there are others I don't. What exactly is the bias you perceive in me, that I should recognize here?

2) I generally try to remain somewhere around the general ridiculousness level of the conversation overall. If you try a more serious or reasonable approach, you'll find that I habitually provide a more serious or reasonable response.

Anyway, there's your "answer my question!" cookie. Enjoy it; I don't hand them out very often.

As has already been addressed, I refer to the bias implicit in your claim that,

Ford's the one who tried to ruin someone's career with anonymous and unsupported accusations. Ford's the one trying to use the FBI as her personal therapy pet.

And, hey, I don't need a cookie. Just pointing out how rarely you have the guts to answer my questions.

I think it's funny! LOL

 

[Belz...]

Would that be the same "suppression of justice" that the victims of Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris and Larry Nassar are guilty of?

The same.

 

[theprestige]

The ABA President's letter is on the ABA website, and it contains the standard ABA press release boilerplate text at the end.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/09/aba_president_calls.html

ETA - worth noting that it's written on behalf of the ABA:

I did note that he is speaking in the name of the ABA. But I don't see any boilerplate in the letter.

 

[Ziggurat]

Precedent, sure. But is it really expected or common? I mean, aside from book deals, I suppose?

It should be expected by anyone with a clue, yes, and there's no reason to put book deals aside. But that's certainly not the entirety of it. Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok made out quite handsomely from their Trump opposition with GoFundMe, so that was a pretty obvious route for Ford to take as well.

 

[theprestige]

She has a motive to lie because after the fact people raised money in her name?

Money is one possible motive. There are others. Recall Jackie's motive for lying to Rolling Stone.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But that doesn't leave any woman (or person since I wish we could stop gendering this but one battle at a time I suppose) who's been victimized by someone in power with anywhere to go.

If accusations are brought against someone in power of course it's gonna make the news and the world being what it is people are going to choose their sides and support people.

You can't use that against them.

 

[carlitos]

I did note that he is speaking in the name of the ABA. But I don't see any boilerplate in the letter.

It's at the link I just posted. A letter wouldn't have this in it, just the press release that announces the letter. This is what PR people call 'boilerplate' text.

With more than 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is one of the largest voluntary professional membership organizations in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online. Follow the latest ABA news at www.americanbar.org/news and on Twitter @ABANews.

ETA - for clarity:
- ABA President is speaking on behalf of the ABA.
- It says so clearly in the letter - "The ABA blah blah blah," ... "We" ...
- Letter was announced by an ABA press release.
- Letter press release and link to letter are on ABA website.
- Press release contains same ABA boilerplate as other ABA press releases, not any kind of disclaimer that this doesn't speak for them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Money is one possible motive. There are others. Recall Jackie's motive for lying to Rolling Stone.

Ford's motive is unlikely to be the same, but there are indeed other possible motives. For example, maybe she really doesn't like Trump's politics, and hopes to thwart him by derailing his nominee. Maybe she's got a grudge against Kavanaugh for unrelated reasons, and is trying to get back at him. Maybe there's more than one motive in play.

There's no way of knowing, really. But that's sort of the point: we don't know that she's motivated by the truth either.

 

[Ziggurat]

But that doesn't leave any woman (or person since I wish we could stop gendering this but one battle at a time I suppose) who's been victimized by someone in power with anywhere to go.

That doesn't leave women able to appeal to pure motives to support their claims. But that's actually as it should be, and it's not unique to sexual impropriety accusations by women. Claims of criminal behavior should be supported by evidence, independent of the motives of the claimant.