|
On September 19 2018 03:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:08 ChristianS wrote:
Yes, only a fake sexual assault victim would be scared by the prospect of being grilled by a bunch of hostile Senators about their alleged sexual assault. Real sexual assault victims would love to have that opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have to prove it didn't happen to win a defamation suit? Care to share how you think he could manage that? Because it rings to me of grandstanding/intimidation more than a real legal threat. Perhaps she should have considered that she'd have to defend her claim before she aired it all publicly? She made the choice to put herself in this position by going public. Because he's a public person, he would have to prove that the statements are false. Right now, I think that he's in pretty good shape to do that. The only other known witness to what happened is on Kavanaugh's side. In contrast, the accuser has no corroborating evidence, plus a host of credibility issues listed above. As other evidence surfaces (if it surfaces), the calculus will change, but right now, it looks like Kavanaugh has the upper hand when it comes to the evidence. I doubt that he pursues the claim, however. There isn't much for him to gain. She didn't "go public" until her story got leaked, but w/e. TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law. She went public as soon as she sent her letter to Feinstein. She knew exactly what she was doing and what was almost certain to happen. I hate to break it to you, but evidence is evidence. What the buddy has to say is evidence just as her testimony is evidence and Kavanaugh's testimony is evidence. At any trial, the jury is tasked with weighing the credibility of each witness and is instructed that they can believe or disregard any and all testimony from any given witness. If this woman presented her story in court without any corroborating evidence and with all of her credibility red flags, she would get annihilated going up against Kavanaugh, who by every other account, is a total boy scout. Like I said yesterday, victim testimony never holds up on its own. If it's not corroborated, and if there is any dirt on the victim, the victim is fucked. This is just how it is. The words "go public" to you apparently mean sending a private letter the contents of which urge the recipient to keep you anonymous. That's a funny understanding of the word "public" you have.
Let's get real. Only a total idiot would expect that letter to be kept private by a politician when the information could be used to potentially derail an adverse SCOTUS nominee. That aside, I wouldn't be surprised if she authorized Feinstein to go public with the letter.
Yeah, I just don't buy that testimony by your friend who was complicit in the alleged crime is worth much. Gotta be right up there with your mom testifying "he would never do this, I raised him better than that." Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current evidence is anywhere close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. But it's also ridiculous to think it proves the opposite, purely on the strength of "he and his buddy both say it didn't happen"
Sure, I have no doubt that her attorneys will make that very argument. But like I said, it's not going to work without any corroborating evidence.
By the way, you keep avoiding the real question: why exactly do you find this woman's uncorroborated allegations to be credible other than the fact that she reported this (discrepancies aside) to a psychologist in 2012?
|
On September 19 2018 04:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 03:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:08 ChristianS wrote:
Yes, only a fake sexual assault victim would be scared by the prospect of being grilled by a bunch of hostile Senators about their alleged sexual assault. Real sexual assault victims would love to have that opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have to prove it didn't happen to win a defamation suit? Care to share how you think he could manage that? Because it rings to me of grandstanding/intimidation more than a real legal threat. Perhaps she should have considered that she'd have to defend her claim before she aired it all publicly? She made the choice to put herself in this position by going public. Because he's a public person, he would have to prove that the statements are false. Right now, I think that he's in pretty good shape to do that. The only other known witness to what happened is on Kavanaugh's side. In contrast, the accuser has no corroborating evidence, plus a host of credibility issues listed above. As other evidence surfaces (if it surfaces), the calculus will change, but right now, it looks like Kavanaugh has the upper hand when it comes to the evidence. I doubt that he pursues the claim, however. There isn't much for him to gain. She didn't "go public" until her story got leaked, but w/e. TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law. She went public as soon as she sent her letter to Feinstein. She knew exactly what she was doing and what was almost certain to happen. I hate to break it to you, but evidence is evidence. What the buddy has to say is evidence just as her testimony is evidence and Kavanaugh's testimony is evidence. At any trial, the jury is tasked with weighing the credibility of each witness and is instructed that they can believe or disregard any and all testimony from any given witness. If this woman presented her story in court without any corroborating evidence and with all of her credibility red flags, she would get annihilated going up against Kavanaugh, who by every other account, is a total boy scout. Like I said yesterday, victim testimony never holds up on its own. If it's not corroborated, and if there is any dirt on the victim, the victim is fucked. This is just how it is. The words "go public" to you apparently mean sending a private letter the contents of which urge the recipient to keep you anonymous. That's a funny understanding of the word "public" you have. Let's get real. Only a total idiot would expect that letter to be kept private by a politician when the information could be used to potentially derail an adverse SCOTUS nominee. That aside, I wouldn't be surprised if she authorized Feinstein to go public with the letter. Show nested quote +Yeah, I just don't buy that testimony by your friend who was complicit in the alleged crime is worth much. Gotta be right up there with your mom testifying "he would never do this, I raised him better than that." Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current evidence is anywhere close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. But it's also ridiculous to think it proves the opposite, purely on the strength of "he and his buddy both say it didn't happen" Sure, I have no doubt that her attorneys will make that very argument. But like I said, it's not going to work without any corroborating evidence. By the way, you keep avoiding the real question: why exactly do you find this woman's uncorroborated allegations to be credible other than the fact that she reported this (discrepancies aside) to a psychologist in 2012?
If the burden of proof were on her in the defamation case, she would need corroborating evidence. But it's not, and you know it. In fact, Kavanaugh would have to not only prove it didn't happen, but also prove she knew it didn't happen (so he'd also have to disprove all the possibilities you floated about her being mistaken). That's absurd, and I think you know that.
I find the allegations credible because I have yet to hear a plausible motive for her to make this up since 2012 and I have yet to hear a plausible narrative for how she could mistakenly recall these events if they didn't happen. That doesn't mean I'm convinced it's all true; but it's plausible enough to deserve an investigation.
|
On September 19 2018 04:14 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:08 ChristianS wrote:
Yes, only a fake sexual assault victim would be scared by the prospect of being grilled by a bunch of hostile Senators about their alleged sexual assault. Real sexual assault victims would love to have that opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have to prove it didn't happen to win a defamation suit? Care to share how you think he could manage that? Because it rings to me of grandstanding/intimidation more than a real legal threat. Perhaps she should have considered that she'd have to defend her claim before she aired it all publicly? She made the choice to put herself in this position by going public. Because he's a public person, he would have to prove that the statements are false. Right now, I think that he's in pretty good shape to do that. The only other known witness to what happened is on Kavanaugh's side. In contrast, the accuser has no corroborating evidence, plus a host of credibility issues listed above. As other evidence surfaces (if it surfaces), the calculus will change, but right now, it looks like Kavanaugh has the upper hand when it comes to the evidence. I doubt that he pursues the claim, however. There isn't much for him to gain. She didn't "go public" until her story got leaked, but w/e. TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law. She went public as soon as she sent her letter to Feinstein. She knew exactly what she was doing and what was almost certain to happen. I hate to break it to you, but evidence is evidence. What the buddy has to say is evidence just as her testimony is evidence and Kavanaugh's testimony is evidence. At any trial, the jury is tasked with weighing the credibility of each witness and is instructed that they can believe or disregard any and all testimony from any given witness. If this woman presented her story in court without any corroborating evidence and with all of her credibility red flags, she would get annihilated going up against Kavanaugh, who by every other account, is a total boy scout. Like I said yesterday, victim testimony never holds up on its own. If it's not corroborated, and if there is any dirt on the victim, the victim is fucked. This is just how it is. The words "go public" to you apparently mean sending a private letter the contents of which urge the recipient to keep you anonymous. That's a funny understanding of the word "public" you have. Let's get real. Only a total idiot would expect that letter to be kept private by a politician when the information could be used to potentially derail an adverse SCOTUS nominee. That aside, I wouldn't be surprised if she authorized Feinstein to go public with the letter. Yeah, I just don't buy that testimony by your friend who was complicit in the alleged crime is worth much. Gotta be right up there with your mom testifying "he would never do this, I raised him better than that." Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current evidence is anywhere close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. But it's also ridiculous to think it proves the opposite, purely on the strength of "he and his buddy both say it didn't happen" Sure, I have no doubt that her attorneys will make that very argument. But like I said, it's not going to work without any corroborating evidence. By the way, you keep avoiding the real question: why exactly do you find this woman's uncorroborated allegations to be credible other than the fact that she reported this (discrepancies aside) to a psychologist in 2012? If the burden of proof were on her in the defamation case, she would need corroborating evidence. But it's not, and you know it. In fact, Kavanaugh would have to not only prove it didn't happen, but also prove she knew it didn't happen (so he'd also have to disprove all the possibilities you floated about her being mistaken). That's absurd, and I think you know that.
Burden and credibility are distinct issues. Credibility has a bearing on whether a party meets his burden. My pointing out that the accuser's attorney is going to have problems with arguments in the credibility game doesn't mean that I am shifting the burden around.
If this hearing at which Kavanaugh and Ford testify occurs, there's no secret as to what's going to happen. Kavanaugh is going to deny the allegations categorically and the democrats are probably not going to have anything to really impeach him with. Yeah, they'll read into the record the allegations, but no one's ultimately going to care. In contrast, the GOP is going to have ample material to work with (all discussed yesterday) to cast doubt on Ford's credibility. And there really won't be anything that she can do to rebut the attacks other than cry.
I find the allegations credible because I have yet to hear a plausible motive for her to make this up since 2012 and I have yet to hear a plausible narrative for how she could mistakenly recall these events if they didn't happen. That doesn't mean I'm convinced it's all true; but it's plausible enough to deserve an investigation.
So what do you want investigated? The only place to go look is to question the accuser, but she won't testify. Without her testimony, there's not really a starting point for an investigation. We don't know where the incident happened or when it happened. That's how deficient her claim is.
|
On September 19 2018 04:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 04:14 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:08 ChristianS wrote:
Yes, only a fake sexual assault victim would be scared by the prospect of being grilled by a bunch of hostile Senators about their alleged sexual assault. Real sexual assault victims would love to have that opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have to prove it didn't happen to win a defamation suit? Care to share how you think he could manage that? Because it rings to me of grandstanding/intimidation more than a real legal threat. Perhaps she should have considered that she'd have to defend her claim before she aired it all publicly? She made the choice to put herself in this position by going public. Because he's a public person, he would have to prove that the statements are false. Right now, I think that he's in pretty good shape to do that. The only other known witness to what happened is on Kavanaugh's side. In contrast, the accuser has no corroborating evidence, plus a host of credibility issues listed above. As other evidence surfaces (if it surfaces), the calculus will change, but right now, it looks like Kavanaugh has the upper hand when it comes to the evidence. I doubt that he pursues the claim, however. There isn't much for him to gain. She didn't "go public" until her story got leaked, but w/e. TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law. She went public as soon as she sent her letter to Feinstein. She knew exactly what she was doing and what was almost certain to happen. I hate to break it to you, but evidence is evidence. What the buddy has to say is evidence just as her testimony is evidence and Kavanaugh's testimony is evidence. At any trial, the jury is tasked with weighing the credibility of each witness and is instructed that they can believe or disregard any and all testimony from any given witness. If this woman presented her story in court without any corroborating evidence and with all of her credibility red flags, she would get annihilated going up against Kavanaugh, who by every other account, is a total boy scout. Like I said yesterday, victim testimony never holds up on its own. If it's not corroborated, and if there is any dirt on the victim, the victim is fucked. This is just how it is. The words "go public" to you apparently mean sending a private letter the contents of which urge the recipient to keep you anonymous. That's a funny understanding of the word "public" you have. Let's get real. Only a total idiot would expect that letter to be kept private by a politician when the information could be used to potentially derail an adverse SCOTUS nominee. That aside, I wouldn't be surprised if she authorized Feinstein to go public with the letter. Yeah, I just don't buy that testimony by your friend who was complicit in the alleged crime is worth much. Gotta be right up there with your mom testifying "he would never do this, I raised him better than that." Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current evidence is anywhere close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. But it's also ridiculous to think it proves the opposite, purely on the strength of "he and his buddy both say it didn't happen" Sure, I have no doubt that her attorneys will make that very argument. But like I said, it's not going to work without any corroborating evidence. By the way, you keep avoiding the real question: why exactly do you find this woman's uncorroborated allegations to be credible other than the fact that she reported this (discrepancies aside) to a psychologist in 2012? If the burden of proof were on her in the defamation case, she would need corroborating evidence. But it's not, and you know it. In fact, Kavanaugh would have to not only prove it didn't happen, but also prove she knew it didn't happen (so he'd also have to disprove all the possibilities you floated about her being mistaken). That's absurd, and I think you know that. Burden and credibility are distinct issues. Credibility has a bearing on whether a party meets his burden. My pointing out that the accuser's attorney is going to have problems with arguments in the credibility game doesn't mean that I am shifting the burden around. If this hearing at which Kavanaugh and Ford testify occurs, there's no secret as to what's going to happen. Kavanaugh is going to deny the allegations categorically and the democrats are probably not going to have anything to really impeach him with. Yeah, they'll read into the record the allegations, but no one's ultimately going to care. In contrast, the GOP is going to have ample material to work with (all discussed yesterday) to case doubt on Ford's credibility. And there really won't be anything that she can do to rebut the attacks other than cry. Show nested quote +I find the allegations credible because I have yet to hear a plausible motive for her to make this up since 2012 and I have yet to hear a plausible narrative for how she could mistakenly recall these events if they didn't happen. That doesn't mean I'm convinced it's all true; but it's plausible enough to deserve an investigation. So what do you wanted investigated? The only place to go look is to question the accuser, but she won't testify. Without her testimony, there's not really a starting point for an investigation. We don't know where the incident happened or when it happened. That's how deficient her claim is.
She would have to be so incredible that there was zero doubt the allegations were false, which is already an absurd bar to get over, and if there was any doubt whatsoever nobody in their right mind would risk punishing an asault victim for speaking up. Even then, they'd also have to prove that she didn't think it happened, which means disproving anything else that she could misperceive or misremember as the allegations in question (for that bit, her seeming incoherent or inconsistent would actually hurt Kavanaugh's case). Finally they would have to come up with a plausible motive for her to lie about this in 2012, which you have yet to do. There's no case here, don't be dense.
For starters, confirm they were in the same school/town? Talk to classmates and find out if the 3 guys she said were there hung out a lot? See if you can figure out who was buying them alcohol, and interview them about the boys' partying behavior? You know, basic fact-checking procedure. Apparently Trump isn't letting the FBI do this kind of work, so near as I can tell the only people doing it will be Dems looking for dirt on Kavanaugh, Republicans looking for dirt on Ford, and the media. Why not put some actual law enforcement folk on it?
|
On September 19 2018 04:47 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 04:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 04:14 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:59 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:33 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2018 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 03:08 ChristianS wrote:
Yes, only a fake sexual assault victim would be scared by the prospect of being grilled by a bunch of hostile Senators about their alleged sexual assault. Real sexual assault victims would love to have that opportunity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have to prove it didn't happen to win a defamation suit? Care to share how you think he could manage that? Because it rings to me of grandstanding/intimidation more than a real legal threat. Perhaps she should have considered that she'd have to defend her claim before she aired it all publicly? She made the choice to put herself in this position by going public. Because he's a public person, he would have to prove that the statements are false. Right now, I think that he's in pretty good shape to do that. The only other known witness to what happened is on Kavanaugh's side. In contrast, the accuser has no corroborating evidence, plus a host of credibility issues listed above. As other evidence surfaces (if it surfaces), the calculus will change, but right now, it looks like Kavanaugh has the upper hand when it comes to the evidence. I doubt that he pursues the claim, however. There isn't much for him to gain. She didn't "go public" until her story got leaked, but w/e. TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law. She went public as soon as she sent her letter to Feinstein. She knew exactly what she was doing and what was almost certain to happen. I hate to break it to you, but evidence is evidence. What the buddy has to say is evidence just as her testimony is evidence and Kavanaugh's testimony is evidence. At any trial, the jury is tasked with weighing the credibility of each witness and is instructed that they can believe or disregard any and all testimony from any given witness. If this woman presented her story in court without any corroborating evidence and with all of her credibility red flags, she would get annihilated going up against Kavanaugh, who by every other account, is a total boy scout. Like I said yesterday, victim testimony never holds up on its own. If it's not corroborated, and if there is any dirt on the victim, the victim is fucked. This is just how it is. The words "go public" to you apparently mean sending a private letter the contents of which urge the recipient to keep you anonymous. That's a funny understanding of the word "public" you have. Let's get real. Only a total idiot would expect that letter to be kept private by a politician when the information could be used to potentially derail an adverse SCOTUS nominee. That aside, I wouldn't be surprised if she authorized Feinstein to go public with the letter. Yeah, I just don't buy that testimony by your friend who was complicit in the alleged crime is worth much. Gotta be right up there with your mom testifying "he would never do this, I raised him better than that." Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current evidence is anywhere close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. But it's also ridiculous to think it proves the opposite, purely on the strength of "he and his buddy both say it didn't happen" Sure, I have no doubt that her attorneys will make that very argument. But like I said, it's not going to work without any corroborating evidence. By the way, you keep avoiding the real question: why exactly do you find this woman's uncorroborated allegations to be credible other than the fact that she reported this (discrepancies aside) to a psychologist in 2012? If the burden of proof were on her in the defamation case, she would need corroborating evidence. But it's not, and you know it. In fact, Kavanaugh would have to not only prove it didn't happen, but also prove she knew it didn't happen (so he'd also have to disprove all the possibilities you floated about her being mistaken). That's absurd, and I think you know that. Burden and credibility are distinct issues. Credibility has a bearing on whether a party meets his burden. My pointing out that the accuser's attorney is going to have problems with arguments in the credibility game doesn't mean that I am shifting the burden around. If this hearing at which Kavanaugh and Ford testify occurs, there's no secret as to what's going to happen. Kavanaugh is going to deny the allegations categorically and the democrats are probably not going to have anything to really impeach him with. Yeah, they'll read into the record the allegations, but no one's ultimately going to care. In contrast, the GOP is going to have ample material to work with (all discussed yesterday) to case doubt on Ford's credibility. And there really won't be anything that she can do to rebut the attacks other than cry. I find the allegations credible because I have yet to hear a plausible motive for her to make this up since 2012 and I have yet to hear a plausible narrative for how she could mistakenly recall these events if they didn't happen. That doesn't mean I'm convinced it's all true; but it's plausible enough to deserve an investigation. So what do you wanted investigated? The only place to go look is to question the accuser, but she won't testify. Without her testimony, there's not really a starting point for an investigation. We don't know where the incident happened or when it happened. That's how deficient her claim is. She would have to be so incredible that there was zero doubt the allegations were false, which is already an absurd bar to get over, and if there was any doubt whatsoever nobody in their right mind would risk punishing an asault victim for speaking up. Even then, they'd also have to prove that she didn't think it happened, which means disproving anything else that she could misperceive or misremember as the allegations in question (for that bit, her seeming incoherent or inconsistent would actually hurt Kavanaugh's case). Finally they would have to come up with a plausible motive for her to lie about this in 2012, which you have yet to do. There's no case here, don't be dense.
Sorry, but you're the one being dense. You have not demonstrated even a passing understanding of how credibility and burdens work despite my explaining it to you quite patiently. Like I said, she doesn't have to prove anything in a defamation suit. Kavanaugh does. But credibility matters when it comes to who is going to meeting burdens of proof. For all of the reasons that I have pointed out, Ford has huge credibility problems. Kavanaugh has none. In fact, he is a federal judge and SCOTUS nominee. The disparity in credibility here is enormous. If you can't see it, I really don't know what to say. And again, the defamation claim is really besides the point because Kavanaugh isn't going to sue her. He's just lawyering up as he should so that he can apply pressure on Ford to back down or potentially question her if Collins' suggestion that Kavanaugh and Ford be subjected to questioning by their respective opposing counsel is accepted.
As for explaining the 2012 therapy session, I already gave my explanation yesterday -- namely that her genuinely believing that Kavanaugh assaulted her is not necessarily inconsistent with it not happening. Regardless, I'd like to see what's in the therapy notes. It could be that there's enough in there showing that Ford knew or should have known that the allegations are false or potentially false such that she acted with reckless disregard in making the allegations.
For starters, confirm they were in the same school/town? Talk to classmates and find out if the 3 guys she said were there hung out a lot? See if you can figure out who was buying them alcohol, and interview them about the boys' partying behavior? You know, basic fact-checking procedure. Apparently Trump isn't letting the FBI do this kind of work, so near as I can tell the only people doing it will be Dems looking for dirt on Kavanaugh, Republicans looking for dirt on Ford, and the media. Why not put some actual law enforcement folk on it?
First of all, the FBI isn't going to get involved because there's no federal crime. They do background checks, but that's it. This would fall outside of that purview.
Second, what you are describing is purely a fishing expedition. Like I pointed out, there isn't even a starting point for this stuff given the deficiencies in the allegations. Which party? Which house? Which fucking year? There are no facts to check until Ford provides them.
|
Credibility just doesn't get you to 100% certainty she's lying. Forget Ford and Kavanaugh, if the prototypical Celebrated Upstanding Citizen is accused by the prototypical Local Crazy Lady of sexual assault when he was a teenager, there's still not enough to go on to totally rule out that either it happened or she's crazy enough to think it did. Sometimes otherwise-upstanding citizens made mistakes as kids, and sometimes crazy ladies get assaulted too. And the further you drive down her credibility by depicting her as crazy, the harder it is to rule out that she's crazy enough to have imagined it happened and then believed it was real.
And again, the defamation claim is really besides the point because Kavanaugh isn't going to sue her. He's just lawyering up as he should so that he can apply pressure on Ford to back down or potentially question her if Collins' suggestion that Kavanaugh and Ford be subjected to questioning by their respective opposing counsel is accepted.
I didn't make this about the defamation case, you did. Now you're saying he's not really gonna sue for defamation, it's just a tactic to pressure Ford, which is what I said in the first place. It's about grandstanding/intimidation, not any real interest in a defamation case he'd be sure to lose.
Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre. The FBI is in charge of "background checks" but basic fact-checking on an allegation of sexual assault is beyond their purview? And investigating a possible sexual assault based on a woman saying "I was sexually assaulted" is a "fishing expedition?" I wonder if you and I actually disagree about anything, or if most of the words you use just have an opposite meaning in your head than mine.
|
On September 19 2018 05:46 ChristianS wrote:Credibility just doesn't get you to 100% certainty she's lying. Forget Ford and Kavanaugh, if the prototypical Celebrated Upstanding Citizen is accused by the prototypical Local Crazy Lady of sexual assault when he was a teenager, there's still not enough to go on to totally rule out that either it happened or she's crazy enough to think it did. Sometimes otherwise-upstanding citizens made mistakes as kids, and sometimes crazy ladies get assaulted too. And the further you drive down her credibility by depicting her as crazy, the harder it is to rule out that she's crazy enough to have imagined it happened and then believed it was real. Show nested quote +And again, the defamation claim is really besides the point because Kavanaugh isn't going to sue her. He's just lawyering up as he should so that he can apply pressure on Ford to back down or potentially question her if Collins' suggestion that Kavanaugh and Ford be subjected to questioning by their respective opposing counsel is accepted. I didn't make this about the defamation case, you did. Now you're saying he's not really gonna sue for defamation, it's just a tactic to pressure Ford, which is what I said in the first place. It's about grandstanding/intimidation, not any real interest in a defamation case he'd be sure to lose. Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre. The FBI is in charge of "background checks" but basic fact-checking on an allegation of sexual assault is beyond their purview? And investigating a possible sexual assault based on a woman saying "I was sexually assaulted" is a "fishing expedition?" I wonder if you and I actually disagree about anything, or if most of the words you use just have an opposite meaning in your head than mine.
You need to take a step back and get a grip on how far out in left field and out of your depth you are. You can't keep the argument straight.
First off, you still don't seem to understand that this isn't necessarily about whether Ford is lying. That someone isn't credible doesn't necessarily mean that they're lying. All it means is that what they're saying is not believable. A witnesses lack of lack of credibility can stem from outright lying, but more often than not it stems from other things like poor memory or other foundational issues. All that I have done, which you have repeatedly failed to grasp and account for, is point out that Ford has many problems with credibility -- so many that her story is simply too flawed to be believable without any independent corroborating evidence. I'm not quite ready to conclude that she's lying, but it's very clear that her story is not presently credible.
Second, I did not make this about the defamation case, and I have repeatedly said that I don't think that Kavanaugh will bring a defamation claim against her. All I did was point out that he hired defamation counsel, and then you started talking about the defamation claim. (Edit: In fairness, I did mention that it “smells like defamation” when noting that Ford wasn’t going to testify.)
As for the FBI, it is known as the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation. It only investigates federal law crimes. Sexual assault is not a federal law crime. Even presuming that the statute of limitations/repose hasn't run for the crime (which I doubt), the FBI would not be the agency that would investigate this.
And yes, investigating this 35-year-old alleged incident would be a fishing expedition. We don't know when it happened. We don't know where it happened. We don't know who was there other than the accuser and two people who denied it ever happened. These are elementary, basic facts that are necessary to start an investigation. Yet, incredibly, you seem to think that investigators can competently just start poking around and find evidence. You really have no clue how this stuff works.
|
On September 19 2018 01:25 xDaunt wrote:
GH, I think you're missing the larger issue. The country simply isn't as far left politically as you want it to be. Obamacare was passed in the form that it was because democrats -- the party of the American left -- would not tolerate a more leftist, universal healthcare-type solution.
Beyond that, and reaching up to the Democratic leadership, what really matters is power, not ideas, principles, or values. The GOP leadership isn't really any different, which is why it has butt heads so much with Trump, who very much is an advocate of ideas, principles, and values for their own sake.
I'm not missing it, I'm missing why people are so sycophantic to the parties and politicians who have no interest in anything but keeping their job of conning voters into exploiting themselves and people less fortunate than themselves.
I mean all this fighting over Kavanaugh, when you know he's a typical pervy DKE from Yale, and the Democrats know they are going to confirm him. I don't understand why it still has any interest, unless people are into seeing another Anita Hill like disgraceful display by congress (which was bipartisan in it's repulsiveness btw).
|
Two different issues are getting conflated. You brought up the defamation case, I said there was no way he would win a defamation case, and you seemed to argue that he would have a good chance of winning it. For that, actual malice is required, meaning that yes, she does have to be lying. Now you seem to be backing off on the "he'd totally win a defamation suit if he wanted to" idea, which is good and I'm happy to drop it.
Now if we drop the defamation sideshow and get back to talking about the allegations themselves and how they relate to the confirmation, we can get into credibility issues that point towards her perhaps mistakenly believing this assault occurred. So far you haven't given me much. "History of mental health problems" and "her students think she's crazy" are pretty thin pickings. Lots of people have histories of depression or bipolar or anxiety disorders, but I have yet to see evidence that makes them likely to suddenly become convinced out of the blue that they were pinned to a bed by Brett Kavanaugh and almost raped. And many (most?) professors have a bunch of students who think they're crazy, yet never suddenly become convinced they were pinned to a bed by Brett Kavanaugh and almost raped. If she had a history of hallucinations or something that'd be a stronger indicator, but I haven't seen any such thing reported.
The discrepancies in details of her story are exactly what you'd expect in a real or hallucinated memory of ~35-year-old events, even (or, depending on circumstances, especially) traumatic ones. The only scenario that seems somewhat inconsistent with, actually, is this being a carefully manufactured lie. People tend to nail doen the particulars when they're conspiring to defraud the American public. Whereas when someone is trying to work through/live with/forget about a deeply traumatic memory, the details can get hazy (this is true, of course, whether the memory is real or hallucinated).
Here, let's just list a few of the things you've thrown against the wall to discredit her:
-She's too eager to talk publicly about it, so she's probably lying.
-She's too reticent to talk publicly about it, she's probably lying.
-She didn't talk publicly about it at the time, so whstever happened must not have been a big deal.
-She's strongly anti-Trump, therefore biased therefore lying.
-She scrubbed her online presence, she's probably lying.
-Her students think she's crazy, she probably made it up.
-She might have been drunk, she probably made it up.
-She's had mental health problems, she probably made it up.
-She admitted she's forgetful, she probably made it up.
-She won't tell us her best recollection of specific details, she probably made it up.
-Her best recollection of specific details is somewhat different than it was 6 years ago, so she probably made it up.
-xDaunt's victim advocacy clients often make stuff up, so she probably made it up.
Honestly, could we have asked for a better tour course of all the bullshit assault victims have to go through when they speak up? And you wonder why she wouldn't say something at the time...
Something tells me your next response will be to quibble with my paraphrases of your criticisms, so I'll say now I'm on a phone and didn't feel like trying to copy and paste a bunch of quotes in here, but if you think you didn't say any of those I'm willing to discuss the xDaunt comment I was referring to in more juicy verbatim detail.
|
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles.
|
On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles.
This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened.
EDIT: And in response to ChristianS, yes, as the evidence stands now -- her uncorroborated, incredible allegations vs. everything that Kavanaugh has at his disposal -- I do think that Kavanaugh would be in a favorable position to win a defamation suit.
|
On September 19 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles. This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened.
I mean you're betraying a critical lack of understanding of how women deal with being abused by men in order to make this argument and I don't even think, you think, that this is all made up. You're just in lawyer and plausible deniability mode, to which you're right. There's no way this would get a conviction in court so it's all optics and if one's willing to entertain the idea she's doing this not because she was assaulted then they'll have a good argument. Of course as with Anita Hill, or other cases, when it's exposed that the guy is/was creepy the people who gaslighted the sexual abuse victim look like despicable people beyond redemption imo.
Of course David Brock stands as an example that's not the case for the Hillary wing of Democrats. As far as gaslighting victims making someone deplorable.
|
On September 19 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles. This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened. I mean you're betraying a critical lack of understanding of how women deal with being abused by men in order to make this argument and I don't even think, you think, that this is all made up. You're just in lawyer and plausible deniability mode, to which you're right. There's no way this would get a conviction in court so it's all optics and if one's willing to entertain the idea she's doing this not because she was assaulted then they'll have a good argument. Of course as with Anita Hill, or other cases, when it's exposed that the guy is/was creepy the people who gaslighted the sexual abuse victim look like despicable people beyond redemption imo.
How women deal with being abused by men is quite besides the point when the underlying abuse cannot even be established.
My initial thought upon hearing about the letter was that Kavanaugh may have been a little grabby and otherwise inappropriate when drunk, and then this woman exaggerated that behavior into what is described in the letter based upon her feelings as to what happened. Looking closer at the allegations and the surrounding circumstances, there are any number of credibility issues to wade through, the sum of which suggest that the allegations belong in a dumpster instead of in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
|
On September 19 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles. This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened. I mean you're betraying a critical lack of understanding of how women deal with being abused by men in order to make this argument and I don't even think, you think, that this is all made up. You're just in lawyer and plausible deniability mode, to which you're right. There's no way this would get a conviction in court so it's all optics and if one's willing to entertain the idea she's doing this not because she was assaulted then they'll have a good argument. Of course as with Anita Hill, or other cases, when it's exposed that the guy is/was creepy the people who gaslighted the sexual abuse victim look like despicable people beyond redemption imo. How women deal with being abused by men is quite besides the point when the underlying abuse cannot even be established. My initial thought upon hearing about the letter was that Kavanaugh may have been a little grabby and otherwise inappropriate when drunk, and then this woman exaggerated that behavior into what is described in the letter based upon her feelings as to what happened. Looking closer at the allegations and the surrounding circumstances, there are any number of credibility issues to wade through, the sum of which suggest that the allegations belong in a dumpster instead of in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It is very much not besides the point if the way they deal with it is exactly the kind of behaviour you think displays "credibility problems"
|
On September 19 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles. This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened. I mean you're betraying a critical lack of understanding of how women deal with being abused by men in order to make this argument and I don't even think, you think, that this is all made up. You're just in lawyer and plausible deniability mode, to which you're right. There's no way this would get a conviction in court so it's all optics and if one's willing to entertain the idea she's doing this not because she was assaulted then they'll have a good argument. Of course as with Anita Hill, or other cases, when it's exposed that the guy is/was creepy the people who gaslighted the sexual abuse victim look like despicable people beyond redemption imo. How women deal with being abused by men is quite besides the point when the underlying abuse cannot even be established. My initial thought upon hearing about the letter is that Kavanaugh may have been a little grabby and otherwise inappropriate when drunk, and then this woman exaggerated that behavior into what is described in the letter based upon her feelings as to what happened. Looking closer at the allegations and the surrounding circumstances, there are any number of credibility issues to wade through, the sum of which suggest that the allegations belong in a dumpster instead of in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It's part and parcel of the point. The credibility, circumstances, and follow-up are all exactly part of why women react in the ways they do to being abused.
I'm sure it could have happened exactly as she says, and the authorities of the day would have written it off just as you are now as "little grabby and otherwise inappropriate when drunk"
You have to understand that the system has always favored men when it came to sexual assault allegations, and speaking of probabilities, it's far more likely that Kavanaugh is lying than the woman.
|
On September 19 2018 08:00 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles. This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened. I mean you're betraying a critical lack of understanding of how women deal with being abused by men in order to make this argument and I don't even think, you think, that this is all made up. You're just in lawyer and plausible deniability mode, to which you're right. There's no way this would get a conviction in court so it's all optics and if one's willing to entertain the idea she's doing this not because she was assaulted then they'll have a good argument. Of course as with Anita Hill, or other cases, when it's exposed that the guy is/was creepy the people who gaslighted the sexual abuse victim look like despicable people beyond redemption imo. How women deal with being abused by men is quite besides the point when the underlying abuse cannot even be established. My initial thought upon hearing about the letter was that Kavanaugh may have been a little grabby and otherwise inappropriate when drunk, and then this woman exaggerated that behavior into what is described in the letter based upon her feelings as to what happened. Looking closer at the allegations and the surrounding circumstances, there are any number of credibility issues to wade through, the sum of which suggest that the allegations belong in a dumpster instead of in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is very much not besides the point if the way they deal with it is exactly the kind of behaviour you think displays "credibility problems"
Even if true, too fucking bad. This is not the kind of shit that we should be ruining lives and careers over. It's pretty clear in my mind: if she can't remember clearly what happened -- regardless of the reason for her fault memory -- then she should have simply kept her mouth shut.
|
On September 19 2018 08:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 08:00 Simberto wrote:On September 19 2018 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles. This. I can't really be any clearer than I have. She has credibility problems. The only one that I haven't really elaborated on as much as I should is her apparent refusal to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is probably the worst fact for her because it does suggest defamation. Over the weekend, she was putting out statements to the effect of she wanted to tell her story. Then once the Senate gave her that opportunity, which would necessarily include an adversarial process, she refused. I could cross examine her on this point alone for a good 15 minutes, letting a jury (or whoever) draw the obvious influence that she wasn't comfortable enough with her to allow it to be scrutinized at all, suggesting that she knows that she has serious doubts about the truth of her statements -- in other words, she made the allegations against Kavanaugh with reckless disregard. This is particularly damning in light of the inconsistencies in her story and her inability to provide basic facts regarding what actually happened. I mean you're betraying a critical lack of understanding of how women deal with being abused by men in order to make this argument and I don't even think, you think, that this is all made up. You're just in lawyer and plausible deniability mode, to which you're right. There's no way this would get a conviction in court so it's all optics and if one's willing to entertain the idea she's doing this not because she was assaulted then they'll have a good argument. Of course as with Anita Hill, or other cases, when it's exposed that the guy is/was creepy the people who gaslighted the sexual abuse victim look like despicable people beyond redemption imo. How women deal with being abused by men is quite besides the point when the underlying abuse cannot even be established. My initial thought upon hearing about the letter was that Kavanaugh may have been a little grabby and otherwise inappropriate when drunk, and then this woman exaggerated that behavior into what is described in the letter based upon her feelings as to what happened. Looking closer at the allegations and the surrounding circumstances, there are any number of credibility issues to wade through, the sum of which suggest that the allegations belong in a dumpster instead of in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is very much not besides the point if the way they deal with it is exactly the kind of behaviour you think displays "credibility problems" Even if true, too fucking bad. This is not the kind of shit that we should ruining lives and careers over. It's pretty clear in my mind: if she can't remember clearly what happened -- regardless of the reason for her fault memory -- then she should have simply kept her mouth shut.
I think someone like Kavanaugh shouldn't even be up for confirmation regardless of what happened with this woman, who I find more credible than him anyway. I just want them to get the vote over with rather than drag this woman through the shit, just to give cover to the people who are going to confirm him regardless of whether it's all true or all lies.
I couldn't care less about Kavanaugh and his career being ruined though.
|
On September 19 2018 07:16 Danglars wrote:
ChristianS, you're a little hung up about defamation and a bit crazy with "TIL that if you rape a girl with your buddy and then she testifies it happened snd you both testify it didn't, that "proves" it didn't happen in a court of law." And WTF is up with the "Your understanding of English words continues to be bizarre?"
I've been reading your posts and all I can garner is that you seriously and deeply feel like she's credible, and are angry that people hold a contrary opinion (and are willing to dispute it with factual bases). You originally asked xDaunt to give you a plausible explanation, and from what I can see he offered 3-4, so are you at least admitting that the point is asked and answered, no matter what additional burdens of proof and higher bars you're putting out there? You keep going around in circles.
Again, two different issues are being conflated. We started with a discussion of her allegations and their plausibility. Then xDaunt switched to thinking Kavanaugh could prove actual malice in a defamation case. The latter basically requires him to prove that the allegations are false, and that she knew they were false but made them anyway.
On the first subject, I have yet to hear a plausible motive for her lying since 2012, but xDaunt seems to mostly be on "she mistakenly but honestly believes this assault occurred." Personally I don't think that's all that solid either, but I can acknowledge that is, at least, an explanation. I certainly think it's weak enough to warrant an investigation to see if we can elucidate things any further, but that's fine, whatever. I've said this two or three times, but I'm not convinced the allegations are true. But without an obvious motive for her to lie in 2012, and alleged behavior heinous enough that it would be hard for her to have merely misinterpreted or misremembered more innocent behavior, it warrants an investigation. For all I know it will turn out her therapist's notes were faked, or she had some grudge against Kavanaugh in 2012, or she has a history of hallucinating traumatic experiences she's never actually had. But as it stands the allegation is credible enough to look into.
The defamation case is where the higher burdens of proof and such come in. Basically, xDaunt is claiming that between Kavanaugh's denial, his friend/alleged accomplice's denial, and the ammunition Kavanaugh would have against Ford's credibility, a court would have sufficient evidence to conclude with absolute certainty that an assault didn't occur, and that Ford knew it didn't occur but made the allegation anyway to damage Kavanaugh.
Again, since there's room for confusion here, innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. If he's suing her for defamation, he has to prove it didn't happen and she knew it (or, technically, something like she was reckless enough with the truth that she basically must have known it wasn't true. "She was crazy and thought it happened when it didn't" would not meet that standard, for instance).
If you're thinking "that burden of proof is absurdly high and basically could ever meet it," you're right! They hardly ever do. Even in cases where you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the claim is false, and that the defamer had no good reason to think otherwise, it's still almost impossible to prove the defamer actually knew it wasn't true. If you're thinking "well this is a pointless aside, since there's no way Kavanaugh would even try to win a case that hopeless with little to gain even if he won," you're right! The only person here who has argued otherwise is xDaunt, and I honestly doubt even he believes a defamation case would be successful. As GH said, he's just doing the lawyer thing right now. Where GH is wrong is in thinking we were discussing whether Kavanaugh could get convicted on current evidence. He couldn't, and nobody here has argued otherwise; the burden of proof that was being discussed, again, is actual malice, which almost certainly could not be proven.
Now can we put all this defamation stuff behind us?
|
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/sdqyyyeux3n11.png)
So democrats are now blatantly interfering with executive privileges. Oh boy. Whatever is about to come out of the FISA application and related materials must be incredibly damning of Obama’s DOJ. And all this talk about the declassification potentially compromising sources and foreign intelligence work is pure nonsense. The whole point here is that we already likely know who the sources are: Christopher Steele laundering information through Fusion GPS and Bruce Ohr. Releasing the FISA application is only going to confirm as such.
|
I haven’t been following this case besides what was talked about here, so I’m not sure if I’m missing anything? It sounds like the accusation is “his word against hers” at best, which is essentially a meaningless accusation, but then there’s at least a few questionable aspects of the story on top of that which would make one question its validity beyond that. And the response is... let’s start a fishing expedition to see if we could potentially uncover some dirt here? Should we always open an investigation the moment someone squeaks about something that potentially happened decades ago with no corroborating evidence whatsoever? I’m not seeing any logic beyond trying to disguise political expediency as an investigation into genuine wrongdoing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
