I wanted to present the “assaulty” bits of each scenario. I’m not “altering” anything.
The only one who has thus far made any statement about this while under oath vehemently denies it ever occurred. Should we assume he was more likely to tell the truth than Ford was when writing an unsolicited letter, seeing as how he was under oath?
AFAIK, no one has asked Judge to do anything. If they want to subpoena Judge to testify under oath about a party that the accuser doesn’t know the date/time/location of from the early 1980’s, I would be fully on board with that. I imagine the line of questioning regarding that would be quite fascinating.
I think it’s only fair if you answer my question first.
…
Amy Chua, who wrote the best selling parenting book “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”, is a professor at Yale and a supporter of Kavanaugh as a mentor to women. But she also counsels the young Yale students she mentors that if they want to interview for an internship with him, they need to look like models, because it’s “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models”.
The Yale newspaper printed an article about Kavanaugh’s days there, when he was a member of the DKE fraternity known for its panty raids, which was secretly known as the “tit and Clit” society. DKE has since been banned from camus for its anti-women behavior.
6 other people besides Ford. Not knowing the names of the other people at the party seems like the kind of thing that could be resolved through some sort of investigative process.
Correct. No on asked him to write a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. As to it being fascinating, fair enough, but it doesn’t answer my question. Would you consider the possibility that Judge does remember the party in question, and if so, would he be more likely so say so under oath, or in his letter?
I think you don’t understand Ford’s claim correctly:
1+4=5. I hope we can agree on at least that much.
"To the best of my knowledge and remembrance of the events 36 years ago this is how it happened. I do so swear…’
Prove he’s not telling the truth as he remembers it at this stage. Hell, prove that he’s simply wrong and his memories are incorrect. But I’m no lawyer and have no LEO experience so what do I know? Perhaps things like lie detectors actually work or they have time travel so as to see what really happened, or the FBI has some other magic techno abilities I’m totally unaware of to determine truth or falsehood of murky events from decades ago based on a party we don’t know the date it happened, where it was held or even who all was there. They will just know all of this if they investigate it and be able to drag out the relevant details from the eye witnesses who seem to have all been kids drinking heavily.
I do have a more serious question for those who seem to want to accept this story at face value and think it should be used to determine if Kavanaugh should get the appointment or not: Do you not see a slippery slope here or the unintended consequences that might occur down the road when the worm has turned and it’s the Dems trying to get a nomination of a second progressive into the USSC? To me, this is the filibuster fiasco all over again. But maybe some of you can explain why this won’t be a slippery slope in the future.
Two things:
I don’t understand the “playing for time” complaint. If Ford and/or the Democrats are playing for time, what good does a week or two give them? The only possible time advantage would be to stall confirmation until after the elections, then have both houses of congress flip to D. The flip is unlikely but possible, but the R’s holding off confirming somebody, anybody, until after the election just isn’t going to happen. If the present nominee dropped dead or withdrew tonight, they’d just pull another rabbit out of the hat – err, another name out of the “list” and shove that person through. So playing for a week or two is of zero consequence.
In this thread and elsewhere I see people arguing that any further investigation is pointless because after all the years there is virtually no possibility of uncovering anything decisive, either pro or con. But this isn’t a criminal trial, and a slam dunk isn’t necessary. This is an accusation of sexual assault, which for our purposes as “the public” goes to judgment, not to provable guilt or innocence. This person is being considered for a job in which the ability to empathize with people, to understand emotional contexts, and to evaluate situations with insight as these apply to the interpretation and application of the law is – or should be – a critical issue. I’m not comfortable with putting someone into that position if he actually got falling down drunk on a regular basis and at least once committed a sexual assault. I’d conclude that such a person has poor judgment and a lack of empathy. If this remains a “he said, she said” and nothing more, then I wouldn’t let it enter into my evaluation. (Note – I think his legal opinions on presidential powers is disqualification enough, but we’re not talking about that here.) I do not know that the FBI would uncover anything that would influence me to sway toward either “he” or “she”. But I see no reason not to find out. I have zero faith in learning anything from an interrogation by a bunch of old white guys with axes to grind. (Hey, I’m an old white guy myself, so I can say that!) Let the FBI do their thing, as that 3rd letter in the acronym suggests.
It’s entirely different to put out a written statement than giving live testimony, especially under oath.
A written statement has no emotions and is generally perfect.
Testifying live, I get to look at you while you’re answering. Say if you say “That never happened” I don’t only hear you, I also see you while you’re saying it. It goes toward the credibility of your statement in a way a written statement does not allow.
Conversely, I get to judge your credibility while you describe the alleged assault. Do you look truthful in your allegations. For better or worse, that’s how it works.
The number of people at the party could also be resolved through some sort of investigative process.
Maybe I’m mistaken but your opinion seems to be: we need to know more, but we shouldn’t take any steps to learn more. Which seems like a silly set of opinions to hold simultaneously.
There’s no slippery slope in treating credible allegations of sexual assault seriously. I suppose it’s possible to manufacture credible allegations, but that would be extremely difficult, and thoroughly investigating them all would have the best chance of revealing any questionable ones.
I have no illusions that there aren’t more Democrats out there who have mistreated women and lied about it. And you know what? Fuck 'em. I hope any and all women who have been abused by politicians (or anyone) come forward, whether now or later or even at the exact most politically harmful moment. Whatever time they want is fine with me. Fuck every single abuser of women out there.
Do you have an interest in answering my question?
ETA: If not, join the club, because it seems that Ditka and Ashtura don’t either.
“Maybe”? “Maybe” you’re mistaken? Dude, you ARE mistaken. She wrote it as plainly as one can: “a gathering that included me and four others.” You said “6 people.” You were wrong. Trying to beat around the bush with this “Maybe” bullshit makes you look silly.
Playing for time makes sense when you look at the fact that the congressional elections are just a bit more than a month away. The longer this can all be dragged out the more chance there is that the Dems will simply have the votes to shut it down, regardless of the merits of the case. Just dragging it out might have an impact or influence the outcome, which would be a good thing for the Dems as well, especially if they can paint the Republicans as the bad guys in all of this for supporting Kavanaugh in the face of all of this massive evidence against him.
According to Ford’s lawyer the “4 others“ referred to the boys at the party. And there were 2 other girls there. Again, the number of people at the party could be resolved.
Sure. The answer is he isn’t more or less likely to answer truthfully, even if we assume he’s lying. Assuming he’s totally lying for whatever reason, making that statement pretty much makes him immune to any consequences if, by some miracle some actual facts to the contrary come out. I thought that was clear in my post there, but perhaps now. Does that satisfy you?
Even if that were true, and you haven’t provided a reference to support it, that would be SEVEN people, not 6 (4 boys, Ford, and “2 other girls”)
That would also represent a pretty radical shift from the letter she wrote, in which she claimed 5 attendees. Are you sure you’re not mixing this up with the confusion over her therapists’ notes that didn’t match her story?