US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 17

On September 26 2018 02:30 xDaunt wrote:
Back to Kavanaugh for a second -- I think that it is more likely than not that Ford doesn't testify. In fact, I think that she never intended to testify -- which is why one of her demands was that the examination not be under oath. Just think about the liability that such testimony would expose her to. She would be telling a story under oath that has been rejected and refuted by all known independent evidence. She'd be on the hook not only for defamation, but also perjury. It would be malpractice for her attorney to expose her to that.

On September 26 2018 03:31 ChristianS wrote:

Jesus Christ, man, we've been through this. "The other (allegedly complicit) people in the room deny it" and "her high school yearbook suggests she (or at least her classmates) liked to drink" (and "she doesn't remember the date or whose house it was," etc.) are not sufficient to prove her account false in court, let alone prove actual malice. Now you're claiming perjury? At least for the defamation thing it was just a civil suit, now you think Kavanaugh can prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt? This is silly. I get the trick, you combine a cheap prediction with "I'm a lawyer, you're not" to try to convert people to your cult of savviness. Then if the prediction comes true you claim credit, if it doesn't you never speak of it again.

It's totally possible she won't testify. McConnell et al. have already made clear they're going forward with it and nothing she says can change their minds, and if she is actually a sexual assault victim, a hearing like that would be deeply traumatizing. But if she doesn't go, it won't prove her account false, and it won't make defamation (let alone perjury) any more plausible.

On September 26 2018 02:47 xDaunt wrote:

I think you're read on Trump is off. Yes, he says that the previous deals were stupid (and he's right about that), but he's not making deals for the sake of making deals. Everything that he does on the foreign stage is with American interests in mind. And why you'd think that Trump would not have done exactly what he's done as it pertains to Israel is simply baffling. Trump was always incredibly supportive of Israel during his campaign and said that he'd relocate the embassy to Jerusalem during the campaign. As for the Kushner peace plan, Trump is going with the tried and true carrot and stick approach that he always uses. Trump tried to negotiate an acceptable deal, and then yanked funding for the Palestinians when it didn't happen.

Again, no one who paid attention during Trump's campaign and took his word for what he was going to do is surprised by anything that Trump has done during his presidency. The only exceptions are Syria and Afghanistan, and it's not really clear what's going on in either case regarding why Trump changed his mind.

On September 26 2018 04:01 ChristianS wrote:
Hey, I'm sick of having to call you out on this shit, but let's be clear: her friend didn't "deny that the party ever occurred." She said she doesn't remember it. An important distinction, considering she also says she believes the allegations (which would be pretty inconsistent with saying it never occurred).

And don't try to back down to the defamation claim (which is still ridiculous). You said perjury. So tell me, xDaunt, do you believe it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh didn't do this? Or were you maybe talking out your ass about a hypothetical case you could safely make predictions about because you knew charges would never be brought, whether she appears or not?

Everything we've seen from Ford is completely consistent with the recollections and behavior of a sexual assault victim. Everything we've seen from Kavanaugh and his friends is completely consistent with guys that did the thing but don't want the consequences of it. Of course, that doesn't prove guilt by any means. The unfortunate truth is that the typical sexual assault usually can't be proven one way or the other. But don't pretend any of this makes her story impossible or even improbable. The fact remains that no good explanation of either motive for lying or mechanism for false memory/mistaken identity has been supplied.

Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party.

On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford's at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.

"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On September 26 2018 04:30 ChristianS wrote:
None of the facts disprove her claim either.

On September 26 2018 04:20 xDaunt wrote:


Let's review:



Source.

Now let me introduce a very basic evidentiary principle to you: Not having any recollection that an event happened is evidence that the event did not happen. That everyone who Ford names as being there denies having any knowledge of being there is absolutely devastating evidence against Ford. Cite to whatever half-assed, questionable psycho-babble "science" that you want. The actual known facts control here. And none of them support Ford. This is why Ford keeps stalling when it comes to testifying. It is patently obvious how it's going to go. She wasn't violated by Kavanaugh, but she pretty much will be by the prosecutor on Capitol Hill if she testifies.

On September 26 2018 04:33 Simberto wrote:


This is nonsense. If you asked me about parties during my high school years, i would almost always say that i don't remember if that party happened. Not because they didn't happen, but because i remember very few details about that stuff. And that is only slightly more than a decade ago. So me not remembering is not evidence that it didn't happen, it is evidence that i don't remember. After a few years, you only remember really memorable events. And if this party, while really important to Ford, was just another party to those other people, they probably don't remember it.

How many details of your social life from highschool do you remember?

On September 26 2018 04:32 xDaunt wrote:


I'm just going to stop right here. That you still don't understand that the testimony of four witnesses saying they have no recollection that the event happened is proof that the event did not happen, and thus proof that the allegations are false, shows that you are hopelessly out of your depth here and really have no idea what you're talking about. When you figure out and accept that you're wrong on this point, then we can continue.

On September 26 2018 04:38 xDaunt wrote:

I dunno, my long term memory is quite exceptional so it is hard to relate. Regardless, the facts are the facts. You can try to explain them away if you want, but it doesn't change the fact no one -- not one of the four people named by Ford -- can or will corroborate Ford's story. Like I told ChristianS, that fact is dispositive in light of the complete absence of any other evidence to support her story.

On September 26 2018 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


Someone didn't get invited to a lot of high school parties

I think the point being attempted is that not remembering this party doesn't mean that the party or events didn't happen. Also it's not quite as conclusive as you're trying to make it sound. You're right when it comes to public/political opinion that outside of the "believe women unless the man can prove without question his innocence" groups her story has pretty much been obliterated.

I'm not quite there personally, but I also recognize the immeasurable amount of suffering caused by not believing women (or just not even giving a shit) when they report this stuff. From the military, to congress, to the workplace, to the home ,women have been getting sexually abused by strangers, family, friends, and partners with virtually no recourse.

I'm reminded of the Bobbit story. Where he mistreated her so badly she cut off his dick and a jury was like "yeah, we get it" and didn't send her to jail. But he went on to become a pornstar and a regular on Howard Stern.

There's also that thing where he tried to seriously suggest he was a virgin until he got married completely obliterated any credibility he had in my eyes. The guy wasn't almost 40 when he lost his virginity (Jesus doesn't play that "anal doesn't count" game) and I seriously question people who believe that story.

On September 26 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:


I'll take the Fifth on that one.



I'm laying out and assessing the evidence as it would be considered in court. Four people saying that they don't remember an event happening is powerful circumstantial evidence that the event did not occur. It's the kind of thing that the finder of fact would latch onto. It mostly certainly would get Kavanaugh past summary judgment if he litigated the defamation claim (which he won't). In contrast, the bald statement from Ford's friend that she "believes Ford" isn't even admissible because it's not relevant or reliable evidence.

And you raise an important point about the societal harm caused by not believing women who have been victimized. My question for you is this: how does promoting such a patently defective claim as Ford's do anything but worsen that problem?

On September 26 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:


I'll take the Fifth on that one.



I'm laying out and assessing the evidence as it would be considered in court. Four people saying that they don't remember an event happening is powerful circumstantial evidence that the event did not occur. It's the kind of thing that the finder of fact would latch onto. It mostly certainly would get Kavanaugh past summary judgment if he litigated the defamation claim (which he won't). In contrast, the bald statement from Ford's friend that she "believes Ford" isn't even admissible because it's not relevant or reliable evidence.

And you raise an important point about the societal harm caused by not believing women who have been victimized. My question for you is this: how does promoting such a patently defective claim as Ford's do anything but worsen that problem?

On September 26 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well, it's pretty well established that victims are emboldened to speak up when other victims of the same perpetrator come forward first. The more questionable the story the easier it is for the next victim to think people will believe their more provable story (even if it was rejected at first) Cosby is a topical example of such a phenomena.

Not saying believing women is a magic bullet cure-all but blindly believing women is actually an improvement on blindly (or even half-mindedly) believing men (which was the status quo and still pretty much is) strictly from a statistical point of view.

Men lie about sexually assaulting people exponentially more than people come forward with fake rape/assault stories.

On September 26 2018 05:40 xDaunt wrote:

Yeah, but surely you get that peddling patently bad claims like Ford's is counterproductive to the goal of making it easier for victims to be heard, right?

On September 26 2018 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:


Would you have any remorse if it turned out Kavanaugh not only assaulted her but other women and you were more worried about protecting a federal judge seeking a promotion than the clearly established precedent of abused women being dismissed because their abuser has important people who depend on it not being true?

Or would the lack of evidence that would apply in a courtroom (as opposed to evidence of Kav being part of a group of guys that have a terrible record with women, or lying about being a virgin until marriage) be enough for you to not feel any remorse or guilt for presuming (based on available evidence) that Kav isn't a creepy liar and knowing you helped destroy her life for speaking the truth (however much it may be lacking in concrete evidence)?

I ask because if we reduce it to believing her or not, I would feel a lot less bad about Kavanaugh losing a promotion because of something he didn't do than I would about denying a sexual assault victim's experience. Which by all accounts something happened to her that changed her entire persona around that time whether it was Kav or not.

On September 26 2018 06:00 xDaunt wrote:


I would feel like an ass, but I wouldn't second guess my analysis based upon what was available. The evidence is what it is. But I'm not really worried about this eventuality right now.



It's not just about Kavanaugh losing a promotion. It's the deliberate smearing of his reputation, character, and career. The emotional trauma that Kavanaugh and his family are suffering right now is quite real. And as of now, it seems completely unwarranted.

On September 26 2018 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


Imagine if you will that it happened exactly as Ford says but the evidence is as we know it now, what should she do/have done in your mind

On September 26 2018 04:38 xDaunt wrote:

I dunno, my long term memory is quite exceptional so it is hard to relate. Regardless, the facts are the facts. You can try to explain them away if you want, but it doesn't change the fact no one -- not one of the four people named by Ford -- can or will corroborate Ford's story. Like I told ChristianS, that fact is dispositive in light of the complete absence of any other evidence to support her story.