B Kavanough and MeToo

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

Where did it take place?

When did it take place?

Who was there, and if so, why did you pick that story?

I thought you were paying attention to more than just the propaganda. My apologies for overestimating you. Won’t happen again. 

EDIT: Better link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/trump-mockery-ford-testimony-sanders-conway-graham.html

Edited October 10, 2018 by iNow

[NicholaiRen]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I thought you were paying attention to more than just the propaganda. My apologies for overestimating you. Won’t happen again. 

https://theintercept.com/2018/10/03/base-president-trump-mocks-lies-christine-blasey-fords-testimony/

I just read it. None of the questions were answered. However, I challenge you to point out the answers if I missed them(Trust me, they're not in the article you provided).

I thought you were paying attention to more than just the propaganda. My apologies for overestimating you. Won't happen again.

Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[iNow]

Edited while you were posting 

I’m optimistic that your reply will be largely unchanged 

[NicholaiRen]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Edited while you were posting 

I’m optimistic that your reply will be largely unchanged 

This diamond from the article:

"It’s true that Ford can’t recall important details about place and time. It’s true that she can’t recall how she got to the house or how she left."

Also, the article doesn't touch on who.

And it doesn't matter who you tell me went there, I have two quotes from Ford which contradict each other so we can play ring around the Rosie until the chickens come in. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[iNow]

Amazing how human memory works, especially in trauma.

Also amazing that we have different opinions on the matter. Shocking, really. 

[NicholaiRen]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Amazing how human memory works, especially in trauma.

 

So I take it you retract your previous statement that what I said was untrue.

And instead, you're just gonna mock me.

Edited October 10, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[iNow]

Not at all. 

You said she didn’t know where. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said it was “a house in the Bethesda area … somewhere between my house and the [Columbia] Country Club.” 

You said she didn’t know when. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said she couldn’t remember the exact date, but that it was the same summer when Mark Judge worked at Safeway, most probably 1982. 

You said she didn’t know who was there. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said, “There were four boys I remember being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending."

So, you’re either badly misinformed or here intentionally lying. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and there’s no need for me retract anything.

But thanks for making me waste time typing what my links already confirmed. You’re a class act. 

Shall we keep confirming we have a different opinion on this topic for another 15 pages?

[NicholaiRen]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

You said she didn’t know where. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said it was “a house in the Bethesda area … somewhere between my house and the [Columbia] Country Club.”

So the location is...... "Somewhere between my house and the Country Club". So she doesn't know where.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You said she didn’t know when. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said she couldn’t remember the exact date

So the date was....... no idea. 1982 isn't exactly a date. 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You said she didn’t know who was there. The transcript of her testimony clearly shows she said, “There were four boys I remember being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending."

 

That's odd. Earlier she said:

"The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and 4 others"

Let's see. Brett, Mark, P.J, one other boy, and Leland(Who by the way denies this), that makes 6.

So, who was there?

And if perhaps you're saying she just forgot about Leland, there was another time when the gathering included just three boys and one girl. Whereas now there's another guy.

 

[iNow]

Okie dokie

[NicholaiRen]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Okie dokie

Hey, if you're gonna tell me she knew where, then you're gonna have to tell me where.

"Somewhere" is a very vague term, even given the context.

If you're also gonna tell me when you need to give me at the very least a time frame that's less then 15 days so we can reasonably investigate.

"1982" is very vague in terms of it. 

 

[iNow]

If only we had a “federal” group, some sort of “bureau,” one that could be allowed (without interference from the politically powerful) to properly follow up on these issues and run an “investigation” so as to help us extinguish these marginal points of seeming disagreement and social rift.

Alas, I’m clearly asking for an unreasonable thing (where’s AG Bonaparte when you need him?).

It’s so much easier to keep us fighting and mired in the weeds... penny wise and pound foolish... perceived enemies instead of peers and brothers.

We surely agree on 95+ percent of what actually matters, but are more easily controlled when focusing on the 5. I have no interest in helping perpetuate that. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Here is Rachel Mitchell's reasoning for stating “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/sex-crimes-prosecutor-details-12-massive-inconsistencies-kavanaugh-accusers-story/

I do not necessarily consider anything Ford stated as "lies", nor the inconsistencies "massive" as suggested (and were not by Rachel Mitchell) , or out of step with a traumatized memory of 30+ years past; but I think it outlines, in part, how difficult it is to take Ford's testimony at face value. A court certainly would not, and I don't see why in a hearing it should be any different.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

Just to reinforce, her description are pretty much textbook how long-term recollection works. Of course you can go into conspiracy theory and state that she did all that as part of some complex plan to appear believable, but observant onlookers will of course realize that it would mean that her recollections would also be attacked if they were too detailed.

You remember certain key events, especially things which leave an emotional impression and the brain reconstructs events from it. E.g. remembering meeting a guy connected to the event at a Safeway at his summer shortly after the event would place the event in the summer weeks, for example (and of course if the FBI was allowed to pull job records, it could be used to corroborate timing, especially the conveniently submitted calendar).

 

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here is Rachel Mitchell's reasoning for stating

Here are some rebuttals 1, 2.

[MigL]

The hearings were a sham; where politicians give the appearance of doing something without actually doing anything, and proceed to do what they would have done all along.
B Kavanough was never in any danger of losing the appointment, no matter what games the Republicans ( and Democrats ) played.
That's the sad state of American partisan politics.

That being said ( and I have on numerous occasions ), I find C Blasey Ford more likeable, believable and sympathetic than B Kavanough, who gives the impression of being a spoiled, arrogant man-child.
But these are just personal OPINIONS.
I would never base guilt or innocence on personal opinion.
Even the fact that he may have lied about some things ( possible depending on your definition of lying; C B F is allowed not remembering, why isn't B K ? ) does not mean he committed or attempted rape.

The only way we'll get to the bottom of this mess is if criminal charges are filed. Then at least we will possibly know.
But B Kavanough will unfortunately still be a Supreme Court Justice.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

OPINIONS

That is fair, but afaik I have not seen (or have overlooked) posts that outright state that Kavanaugh is a rapist or assaulter.  Rather the tone is similar to yours, i.e. that Ford is believable. Yet early on and before the hearing the opposite is true. Folks have, without evidence stated outright that Ford is lying and is just out to ruin someone's life. And btw. BK was free to state that he forgot. He chose a different approach instead.

 

[DrP]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

 I find C Blasey Ford more likeable, believable and sympathetic than B Kavanough, who gives the impression of being a spoiled, arrogant man-child.
But these are just personal OPINIONS.
I would never base guilt or innocence on personal opinion.

...which is why there should be an investigation - I do not see how/why they would forbid that unless they were covering something up.

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, DrP said:

...which is why there should be an investigation - I do not see how/why they would forbid that unless they were covering something up.

Would there not be if charges were pressed? Would a proper trial not be the best forum for this?

Ford/Ford's team is unwilling to do that, or agrees with Mitchell that the evidence available does not warrant it. (I emphasize or to make it clear I am not claiming and)

 

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

 

Here are some rebuttals 1, 2.

Much of both is based on the belief that the investigation should have been more thorough. Mitchell never claimed otherwise...her statement was "based on the evidence before the committee".

Both were also based on a perversion of science and logic. Mitchell pointed out the weakness of Ford's memory. The fact that this weakness is not atypical of a victim does not strengthen her case. It might explain/excuse it, but that does not replace the need for more tangible evidence. Ford's sketchy memory of the event with few facts that could be corroborated (and none were) is not an asset. Her gaps in memory is a liability to her case. In no way does it rebut Mitchell's concerns.

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Just to reinforce, her description are pretty much textbook how long-term recollection works. Of course you can go into conspiracy theory and state that she did all that as part of some complex plan to appear believable, but observant onlookers will of course realize that it would mean that her recollections would also be attacked if they were too detailed.

You remember certain key events, especially things which leave an emotional impression and the brain reconstructs events from it. E.g. remembering meeting a guy connected to the event at a Safeway at his summer shortly after the event would place the event in the summer weeks, for example (and of course if the FBI was allowed to pull job records, it could be used to corroborate timing, especially the conveniently submitted calendar).

 

 

It is bizarre to me that so many accept the notion that Ford, or any woman, would come forward for some malicious purpose. Ford has gotten nothing for doing this. Ford is a very success professional. She is a professor at Stanford. The idea that she came forward just to get on TV is stupid. This whole ordeal has done nothing for her. Ford hasn't been paid, isn't running for office, and now must deal with her name being associated with divisive partisanship for the rest of her life. I loosely understand why people claim Democrats would wanted to use Ford to delay the Kavanaugh vote but that doesn't speak to, totally ignores in my opinion, why Ford reached out in the first place. Ford is a very creditable individual so posters are attempting to bait and switch us into discussing what Democrats were doing. People have been posting things akin to that "Ford seems honest but DID YOU READ WHAT SEN. HIRONO SAID OMG this is just a strategy by Democrats".   

Edited October 10, 2018 by Ten oz

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is bizarre to me that so many accept the notion that Ford, or any woman, would come forward for some malicious purpose. Ford has gotten nothing for doing this. Ford is a very success professional. She is a professor at Stanford. The idea that she came forward just to get on TV is stupid. This whole ordeal has done nothing for her. Ford hasn't been paid, isn't running for office, and now must deal with her name being associated with divisive partisanship for the rest of her life. I loosely understand why people claim Democrats would wanted to use Ford to delay the Kavanaugh vote but that doesn't speak to, totally ignores in my opinion, why Ford reached out in the first place. Ford is a very creditable individual so posters are attempting to bait and switch us into discussing what Democrats were doing. People have been posting things akin to that "Ford seems honest but DID YOU READ WHAT SEN. HIRONO SAID OMG this is just a strategy by Democrats".   

Ten oz. I am sure you think that sounds good, but it just demonstrates that after 19 pages you still don't get the main point with regard to rush to judgement, disregard for due process as we know it, and the presumption of innocence as we know it.

Regardless of strategy, honesty, or who is guilty, what Hirono said, implied, and did not qualify...it is a dangerous position that you seem to be advocating. You seem to think that you can turn it on or off for reasons you feel are appropriate. Can you not at least understand that if these fundamental "changes to the status quo" are made, you might not get to choose when and how they are applied...those in power will. 

[StringJunky]

The neg brigade is out again. I wonder if it might be time to knock this thread on the head until another time. Some people are thinking with their hearts rather than their heads.

Edited October 10, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ten oz. I am sure you think that sounds good, but it just demonstrates that after 19 pages you still don't get the main point with regard to rush to judgement, disregard for due process as we know it, and the presumption of innocence as we know it.

Regardless of strategy, honesty, or who is guilty, what Hirono said, implied, and did not qualify...it is a dangerous position that you seem to be advocating. You seem to think that you can turn it on or off for reasons you feel are appropriate. Can you not at least understand that if these fundamental "changes to the status quo" are made, you might not get to choose when and how they are applied...those in power will. 

What exactly would have been "dangerous" about giving the FBI full anatomy to run an investigation? Kavanaugh had multiple accusers and the FBI was restricted to only investigating one, given only a week, and wasn't able to interview either the accuser or accused. You are complaining about Hirono and what her comments could potentially mean for due process while totally ignoring the manner in which Republicans manipulated the FBI's investigation which would have been to best chance of due process. Action matters to me more than rhetoric. Hirono's words impacted nothing. Republican action impact a lot. You seem to be more interested in discussing due process in theoretical terms as applied to situations which don't exist rather than address what is actually happening in real time. 

[NicholaiRen]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

What exactly would have been "dangerous" about giving the FBI full anatomy to run an investigation? Kavanaugh had multiple accusers and the FBI was restricted to only investigating one, given only a week, and wasn't able to interview either the accuser or accused. You are complaining about Hirono and what her comments could potentially mean for due process while totally ignoring the manner in which Republicans manipulated the FBI's investigation which would have been to best chance of due process. Action matters to me more than rhetoric. Hirono's words impacted nothing. Republican action impact a lot. You seem to be more interested in discussing due process in theoretical terms as applied to situations which don't exist rather than address what is actually happening in real time. 

I'm starting to think nothing we say will get through to you, because a general trend I see in your posts in this thread, and in others, is that you despise the Republican party and defend the Democratic Party tooth and nail. And with this situation, which includes both the Democratic party and the Republican party, you're going to take the side of the Democrats and refuse to move, regardless of any information, evidence, logic, or examples we can provide.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What exactly would have been "dangerous" about giving the FBI full anatomy to run an investigation? Kavanaugh had multiple accusers and the FBI was restricted to only investigating one, given only a week, and wasn't able to interview either the accuser or accused. You are complaining about Hirono and what her comments could potentially mean for due process while totally ignoring the manner in which Republicans manipulated the FBI's investigation which would have been to best chance of due process. Action matters to me more than rhetoric. Hirono's words impacted nothing. Republican action impact a lot. You seem to be more interested in discussing due process in theoretical terms as applied to situations which don't exist rather than address what is actually happening in real time. 

Nothing. Who said it would have?

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

I'm starting to think nothing we say will get through to you, because a general trend I see in your posts in this thread, and in others, is that you despise the Republican party and defend the Democratic Party tooth and nail. And with this situation, which includes both the Democratic party and the Republican party, you're going to take the side of the Democrats and refuse to move, regardless of any information, evidence, logic, or examples we can provide.

Democrats have no power in Congress. The Senate Judiciary committee is majority Republican. It is Republicans who who controlled the hearings, the FBI investigation and the confirmation vote. What exactly did Democrats do which you feel I should be upset at? 

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nothing. Who said it would have?

An investigation is what I have advocated. Believing the women to me means having a real investigation which doesn't ignore all but one accuser, puts a timeline on the investigation, and doesn't allow for interviews of the people involved. In my opinion one would only ignore accusers and scratch them from being interviewed if one doesn't believe them. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Ten oz

[DrP]

9 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

I'm starting to think nothing we say will get through to you, because a general trend I see in your posts in this thread, and in others, is that you despise the Republican party and defend the Democratic Party tooth and nail.

In this though, it doesn't matter what party is in charge or who is president. The investigation was barred by the WH.. to me that is unacceptable whatever the party politics.

 

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nothing. Who said it would have?

Presumably those that barred it from happening.