|
On September 28 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
I'm sure that the structure is driving Mitchell nuts. Examining a witness (especially cross examining a witness) is all about flow. There's no flow to what she's doing, which lessens the effectiveness of the examination. She's getting the inconsistencies on the record, but she's not really able to snowball them like she should. Won't matter, they're already being slammed together in a supercut that's going to run non-stop on Fox News just like there's one of her getting emotional getting put together for MSNBC and CNN will run half of each It matters because Ford is being given an opportunity to mentally recover after each set of questions. What typically happens in this situation is that the examination wears the witness down and the answers become progressively worse. Well answering "worse" is something someone does who is trying to break a witness/suspect, not someone seeking the truth. In a courtroom that type of morality works, but that brings it's own negative political optics.
Cross examination is the best truth finding tool that we have.
|
On September 28 2018 00:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
I'm sure that the structure is driving Mitchell nuts. Examining a witness (especially cross examining a witness) is all about flow. There's no flow to what she's doing, which lessens the effectiveness of the examination. She's getting the inconsistencies on the record, but she's not really able to snowball them like she should. Won't matter, they're already being slammed together in a supercut that's going to run non-stop on Fox News just like there's one of her getting emotional getting put together for MSNBC and CNN will run half of each It matters because Ford is being given an opportunity to mentally recover after each set of questions. What typically happens in this situation is that the examination wears the witness down and the answers become progressively worse. Well answering "worse" is something someone does who is trying to break a witness/suspect, not someone seeking the truth. In a courtroom that type of morality works, but that brings it's own negative political optics. Cross examination is the best truth finding tool that we have.
My point is the desire should be for her to answer honestly, not answer poorly. Trying to get her to answer poorly isn't something one does if they are seeking the truth, it's something one does if they want to make the other person look like a liar regardless of whether they are or not.
Back to your previous question, it would mean the Democrats would gain the benefits of crossing Kavanaugh. It's been rumored Republicans are skeptical of his ability to stand up to something like that. Especially since the Democrats have a prosecutor that happens to be Black and a woman, rather than having to hire a woman/lawyer.
|
Cross examination has rules and a judge enforce them. This is not a court of law and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
|
On September 28 2018 00:51 Plansix wrote:
Cross examination has rules and a judge enforce them. This is not a court of law and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
This is a circus, but more civilized than I expected. I can't stand how these hearings are always one side asking questions and the other blowing smoke up the persons ass though.
|
On September 28 2018 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
I'm sure that the structure is driving Mitchell nuts. Examining a witness (especially cross examining a witness) is all about flow. There's no flow to what she's doing, which lessens the effectiveness of the examination. She's getting the inconsistencies on the record, but she's not really able to snowball them like she should. Won't matter, they're already being slammed together in a supercut that's going to run non-stop on Fox News just like there's one of her getting emotional getting put together for MSNBC and CNN will run half of each It matters because Ford is being given an opportunity to mentally recover after each set of questions. What typically happens in this situation is that the examination wears the witness down and the answers become progressively worse. Well answering "worse" is something someone does who is trying to break a witness/suspect, not someone seeking the truth. In a courtroom that type of morality works, but that brings it's own negative political optics. Cross examination is the best truth finding tool that we have. My point is the desire should be for her to answer honestly, not answer poorly. Trying to get her to answer poorly isn't something one does if they are seeking the truth, it's something one does if they want to make the other person look like a liar regardless of whether they are or not. Back to your previous question, it would mean the Democrats would gain the benefits of crossing Kavanaugh. It's been rumored Republicans are skeptical of his ability to stand up to something like that. Especially since the Democrats have a prosecutor that happens to be Black and a woman, rather than having to hire a woman/lawyer.
I should qualify what I meant by "poor." "Poor" would mean less calculated. What I'm trying to describe is how cross examination, as a truth finding tool, has a snowballing effect. As the witness is systematically broken down, the answers that come out become less and less calculated and increasingly frank.
I don't know why Kavanaugh would be unable to stand up to cross examination from democrats. The problem with cross examining Kavanaugh is that there's literally nothing to hold his feet to the fire. Just look at what Mitchell is doing with Ford. She has a ton of prior statements made by Ford to work with to show inconsistencies in her various accounts of what happened, among other problems. This is why she is starting to draw blood on Ford. In contrast, I'm not aware of any similar evidence that would be available to nail down Kavanaugh. There's no corroboration. There's nothing independently credible showing that Kavanaugh has been lying. This is why it has been so easy for me (and others) to dismiss Ford's claim. Once you look at the evidence and really assess, it's very clear that only one result is possible.
|
On September 28 2018 00:51 Plansix wrote:
Cross examination has rules and a judge enforce them. This is not a court of law and it shouldn’t be treated like one.
Don't kid yourself. This is a cross examination, and Mitchell is treating it as such. That said, Mitchell hasn't asked anything inappropriate that a judge would shut down.
|
Here it is. Grassley is dropping the truth bomb on why the request for the FBI is such a farce.
|
On September 28 2018 00:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
I'm sure that the structure is driving Mitchell nuts. Examining a witness (especially cross examining a witness) is all about flow. There's no flow to what she's doing, which lessens the effectiveness of the examination. She's getting the inconsistencies on the record, but she's not really able to snowball them like she should. Won't matter, they're already being slammed together in a supercut that's going to run non-stop on Fox News just like there's one of her getting emotional getting put together for MSNBC and CNN will run half of each It matters because Ford is being given an opportunity to mentally recover after each set of questions. What typically happens in this situation is that the examination wears the witness down and the answers become progressively worse. Well answering "worse" is something someone does who is trying to break a witness/suspect, not someone seeking the truth. In a courtroom that type of morality works, but that brings it's own negative political optics. Cross examination is the best truth finding tool that we have. My point is the desire should be for her to answer honestly, not answer poorly. Trying to get her to answer poorly isn't something one does if they are seeking the truth, it's something one does if they want to make the other person look like a liar regardless of whether they are or not. Back to your previous question, it would mean the Democrats would gain the benefits of crossing Kavanaugh. It's been rumored Republicans are skeptical of his ability to stand up to something like that. Especially since the Democrats have a prosecutor that happens to be Black and a woman, rather than having to hire a woman/lawyer. I should qualify what I meant by "poor." "Poor" would mean less calculated. What I'm trying to describe is how cross examination, as a truth finding tool, has a snowballing effect. As the witness is systematically broken down, the answers that come out become less and less calculated and increasingly frank. I don't know why Kavanaugh would be unable to stand up to cross examination from democrats. The problem with cross examining Kavanaugh is that there's literally nothing to hold his feet to the fire. Just look at what Mitchell is doing with Ford. She has a ton of prior statements made by Ford to work with to show inconsistencies in her various accounts of what happened, among other problems. This is why she is starting to draw blood on Ford. In contrast, I'm not aware of any similar evidence that would be available to nail down Kavanaugh. There's no corroboration. There's nothing independently credible showing that Kavanaugh has been lying. This is why it has been so easy for me (and others) to dismiss Ford's claim. Once you look at the evidence and really assess, it's very clear that only one result is possible.
What do you mean "one result is possible"?
So are you saying you buy his virgin until 2004 story or saying that we couldn't convict him for lying about it?
|
Uh oh. Kavanaugh's name is not in the therapy notes.
|
On September 28 2018 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
I'm sure that the structure is driving Mitchell nuts. Examining a witness (especially cross examining a witness) is all about flow. There's no flow to what she's doing, which lessens the effectiveness of the examination. She's getting the inconsistencies on the record, but she's not really able to snowball them like she should. Won't matter, they're already being slammed together in a supercut that's going to run non-stop on Fox News just like there's one of her getting emotional getting put together for MSNBC and CNN will run half of each It matters because Ford is being given an opportunity to mentally recover after each set of questions. What typically happens in this situation is that the examination wears the witness down and the answers become progressively worse. Well answering "worse" is something someone does who is trying to break a witness/suspect, not someone seeking the truth. In a courtroom that type of morality works, but that brings it's own negative political optics. Cross examination is the best truth finding tool that we have. My point is the desire should be for her to answer honestly, not answer poorly. Trying to get her to answer poorly isn't something one does if they are seeking the truth, it's something one does if they want to make the other person look like a liar regardless of whether they are or not. Back to your previous question, it would mean the Democrats would gain the benefits of crossing Kavanaugh. It's been rumored Republicans are skeptical of his ability to stand up to something like that. Especially since the Democrats have a prosecutor that happens to be Black and a woman, rather than having to hire a woman/lawyer. I should qualify what I meant by "poor." "Poor" would mean less calculated. What I'm trying to describe is how cross examination, as a truth finding tool, has a snowballing effect. As the witness is systematically broken down, the answers that come out become less and less calculated and increasingly frank. I don't know why Kavanaugh would be unable to stand up to cross examination from democrats. The problem with cross examining Kavanaugh is that there's literally nothing to hold his feet to the fire. Just look at what Mitchell is doing with Ford. She has a ton of prior statements made by Ford to work with to show inconsistencies in her various accounts of what happened, among other problems. This is why she is starting to draw blood on Ford. In contrast, I'm not aware of any similar evidence that would be available to nail down Kavanaugh. There's no corroboration. There's nothing independently credible showing that Kavanaugh has been lying. This is why it has been so easy for me (and others) to dismiss Ford's claim. Once you look at the evidence and really assess, it's very clear that only one result is possible. What do you mean "one result is possible"?
That Ford is going to get grilled and be shown to be not credible enough to stop Kavanaugh's nomination.
|
On September 28 2018 01:02 xDaunt wrote:
Uh oh. Kavanaugh's name is not in the therapy notes.
Why would it be, of what importance would the name of the person be to therapy (presuming it wasn't a problematic trigger for her)?
On September 28 2018 01:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 00:30 xDaunt wrote:
I'm sure that the structure is driving Mitchell nuts. Examining a witness (especially cross examining a witness) is all about flow. There's no flow to what she's doing, which lessens the effectiveness of the examination. She's getting the inconsistencies on the record, but she's not really able to snowball them like she should. Won't matter, they're already being slammed together in a supercut that's going to run non-stop on Fox News just like there's one of her getting emotional getting put together for MSNBC and CNN will run half of each It matters because Ford is being given an opportunity to mentally recover after each set of questions. What typically happens in this situation is that the examination wears the witness down and the answers become progressively worse. Well answering "worse" is something someone does who is trying to break a witness/suspect, not someone seeking the truth. In a courtroom that type of morality works, but that brings it's own negative political optics. Cross examination is the best truth finding tool that we have. My point is the desire should be for her to answer honestly, not answer poorly. Trying to get her to answer poorly isn't something one does if they are seeking the truth, it's something one does if they want to make the other person look like a liar regardless of whether they are or not. Back to your previous question, it would mean the Democrats would gain the benefits of crossing Kavanaugh. It's been rumored Republicans are skeptical of his ability to stand up to something like that. Especially since the Democrats have a prosecutor that happens to be Black and a woman, rather than having to hire a woman/lawyer. I should qualify what I meant by "poor." "Poor" would mean less calculated. What I'm trying to describe is how cross examination, as a truth finding tool, has a snowballing effect. As the witness is systematically broken down, the answers that come out become less and less calculated and increasingly frank. I don't know why Kavanaugh would be unable to stand up to cross examination from democrats. The problem with cross examining Kavanaugh is that there's literally nothing to hold his feet to the fire. Just look at what Mitchell is doing with Ford. She has a ton of prior statements made by Ford to work with to show inconsistencies in her various accounts of what happened, among other problems. This is why she is starting to draw blood on Ford. In contrast, I'm not aware of any similar evidence that would be available to nail down Kavanaugh. There's no corroboration. There's nothing independently credible showing that Kavanaugh has been lying. This is why it has been so easy for me (and others) to dismiss Ford's claim. Once you look at the evidence and really assess, it's very clear that only one result is possible. What do you mean "one result is possible"? That Ford is going to get grilled and be shown to be not credible enough to stop Kavanaugh's nomination.
You think there's a credibility gap that could have been closed that would have prevented him from being confirmed by Republicans?
|
On September 28 2018 00:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:51 Plansix wrote:
Cross examination has rules and a judge enforce them. This is not a court of law and it shouldn’t be treated like one. Don't kid yourself. This is a cross examination, and Mitchell is treating it as such. That said, Mitchell hasn't asked anything inappropriate that a judge would shut down.
Pretty sure the judge would object that her counsel wasn’t allowed to question her. Cross examination requires an initial examination.
|
On September 28 2018 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
So are you saying you buy his virgin until 2004 story or saying that we couldn't convict him for lying about it?
I see no reason to doubt his story. Not every guy gets dick wet in high school or even college.
|
On September 28 2018 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 00:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 00:51 Plansix wrote:
Cross examination has rules and a judge enforce them. This is not a court of law and it shouldn’t be treated like one. Don't kid yourself. This is a cross examination, and Mitchell is treating it as such. That said, Mitchell hasn't asked anything inappropriate that a judge would shut down. Pretty sure the judge would object that her counsel wasn’t allowed to question her. Cross examination requires an all initial examination.
Nope, that is incorrect to the extent that we're talking about the ability to ask leading, cross-examination-type questions.
|
On September 28 2018 01:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
So are you saying you buy his virgin until 2004 story or saying that we couldn't convict him for lying about it? I see no reason to doubt his story. Not every guy gets dick wet in high school or even college.
There are LOTS of reasons to doubt it. No, but the guys who brag about it in their yearbook typically at least tried, and "trying" back then was frequently sexual assault anyway.
|
On September 28 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
So are you saying you buy his virgin until 2004 story or saying that we couldn't convict him for lying about it? I see no reason to doubt his story. Not every guy gets dick wet in high school or even college. There are LOTS of reasons to doubt it. No, but the guys who brag about it in their yearbook typically at least tried, and "trying" back then was frequently sexual assault anyway.
Guys talk a big game -- typically a much bigger game than they actually have.
|
On September 28 2018 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
You think there's a credibility gap that could have been closed that would have prevented him from being confirmed by Republicans?
If there was anything remotely credible about any of the three sets of allegations, Kavanaugh would not be in position to be confirmed.
|
On September 28 2018 01:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2018 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2018 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
So are you saying you buy his virgin until 2004 story or saying that we couldn't convict him for lying about it? I see no reason to doubt his story. Not every guy gets dick wet in high school or even college. There are LOTS of reasons to doubt it. No, but the guys who brag about it in their yearbook typically at least tried, and "trying" back then was frequently sexual assault anyway. Guys talk a big game -- typically a much bigger game than they actually have.
Which leads me to believe he was forcefully rejected frequently. Particularly since he was reasonably well known to get excessively drunk as was his frat in college, which also notoriously abuse/d women.
On September 28 2018 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 01:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
You think there's a credibility gap that could have been closed that would have prevented him from being confirmed by Republicans? If there was anything remotely credible about any of the three sets of allegations, Kavanaugh would not be in position to be confirmed.
Credible and true aren't the same thing.
|
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth.
|
On September 28 2018 01:14 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, credible and true are distinct concepts. Our system is intentionally set up to avoid speaking in terms of "truth," but with the goal of seeking the truth.
"goal of seeking the truth" seems to be something people imagine/project onto the system, not it's innate goal let alone practical outcome. It's about manipulating facts to create stories, one favorable to prosecutors the others favorable to the defense.
Having seen people go through the justice system, prosecutors are perfectly content to favor a story over the truth if it gets them a conviction and the same goes for defense lawyers (meaning gets them an acquittal).
The whole "adversarial" part gives it away imo.
EDIT: This might be easier for you to understand my point if instead you imagine a defense lawyer crossing a witness to a crime where they did in fact see the defendant commit the crime but upon cross their credibility is destroyed.
That's not truth seeking at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
