How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case?

[LAZombie]

@iiandyiiii

A real investigation could have confirmed other details of both Ford and Kavanaugh’s accounts and testimony (Ford’s account of seeing Judge at his supermarket job later, Kavanaugh’s drinking and possibly blackout habits, and much more). And there was plenty of time for a real investigation.

But the Republican leadership decided political concerns were more important than a real and thorough investigation.

Why did Leland Keyser, her lifelong friend, so vehemently deny being at the party and knowing Kavanaugh?

You like Ford are going say she doesn’t remember because it was so uneventful.

Fair enough.

Why does Keyser not even offer up the possibility that the party could have occurred? That would be a reasonable response yet Keyser doesn’t. I suspect Keyser, being 15 at the time, may not have physically been in the area for most of the summer of 1982 because she was vacationing or staying with relatives. To say the party could have occurred and then someone from Keyser’s past steps up and proves Keyser could not have been there would be perjury.

[iiandyiiii]

@LAZombie

Why did Leland Keyser, her lifelong friend, so vehemently deny being at the party and knowing Kavanaugh?

You like Ford are going say she doesn’t remember because it was so uneventful.

Fair enough.

Why does Keyser not even offer up the possibility that the party could have occurred? That would be a reasonable response yet Keyser doesn’t. I suspect Keyser, being 15 at the time, may not have physically been in the area for most of the summer of 1982 because she was vacationing or staying with relatives. To say the party could have occurred and then someone from Keyser’s past steps up and proves Keyser could not have been there would be perjury.

I’m unaware of any testimony under oath from Keyser or anyone else who might be able to have corroborated (or not) the testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh, as well as be questioned by Senators about their memories from that time to see what further light might be shed. Testimony under oath, and being questioned by both sides, is very different from a statement provided without the opportunity for questioning.

The Republican leadership chose not to call any witnesses. They could have, if they wanted a full and thorough investigation, but they did not.

[Velocity]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The stakes were incredibly high. There is no amount of partisanship in his past that would have derailed his confirmation. The Democrats were looking at a generation of conservative SCOTUS opinions. They were desperate and they threw the kitchen sink at him. So an uncorroborated accusation of sexual assault from 30+ years ago became their centerpiece and they probably lost some votes over it. But the fight was simply too important to shrug off as a lost cause.

Derailing the Kavanaugh confirmation would have just resulted in Trump nominating an equally right-wing judge as the SCOTUS nominee instead - maybe someone like William Pryor. One way or another, Kennedy was going to be replaced by a staunch conservative.
This is where Democrats got it wrong. They didn’t realize that blocking Kavanaugh didn’t mean they were going to get a more moderate nominee.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

Derailing the Kavanaugh confirmation would have just resulted in Trump nominating an equally right-wing judge as the SCOTUS nominee instead - maybe someone like William Pryor. One way or another, Kennedy was going to be replaced by a staunch conservative.
This is where Democrats got it wrong. They didn’t realize that blocking Kavanaugh didn’t mean they were going to get a more moderate nominee.

For those of us who think sexual assault allegations should be treated seriously and thoroughly investigated, this is irrelevant.

[LAZombie]

@iiandyiiii

I’m unaware of any testimony under oath from Keyser or anyone else who might be able to have corroborated (or not) the testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh, as well as be questioned by Senators about their memories from that time to see what further light might be shed. Testimony under oath, and being questioned by both sides, is very different from a statement provided without the opportunity for questioning.

The Republican leadership chose not to call any witnesses. They could have, if they wanted a full and thorough investigation, but they did not.

Nothing is stopping Leland Keyser from going to the press and doing an interview. False accuser Julie Swetnick was all over the television.

[iiandyiiii]

@LAZombie

Nothing is stopping Leland Keyser from going to the press and doing an interview. False accuser Julie Swetnick was all over the television.

I’d presume that Keyser is human, and thus not terribly interested in upending their family life and becoming the target of death threats and all the other terrible things that happen to people who speak out about sexual assault from powerful men. YMMV.

Which doesn’t absolve the Republicans in the Senate from declining to pursue a thorough investigation of the allegations.

[Eonwe]

@Xema

Right - like no evidence that he’d never been in the location that she couldn’t recall. And absolutely no alibi for the unspecified date and time of this “event”.

“Contradictory evidence” is miles away from what you mention here. Try again.

[VinylTurnip]

@Velocity

Derailing the Kavanaugh confirmation would have just resulted in Trump nominating an equally right-wing judge as the SCOTUS nominee instead - maybe someone like William Pryor. One way or another, Kennedy was going to be replaced by a staunch conservative.
This is where Democrats got it wrong. They didn’t realize that blocking Kavanaugh didn’t mean they were going to get a more moderate nominee.

Yeah, exactly! Or— I know this is way out there, but— maybe they were fully aware of that and objected to Kavanaugh specifically, because of questions about his past behavior, evidence of his political partisanship, and serious doubts about his candor and temperament based on his borderline-unhinged performance during live televised hearings.

But nah, you’re right. They’re probably just stupid and thought Trump would nominate a liberal Democrat instead.

[septimus]

@Velocity

This is where Democrats got it wrong. They didn’t realize that blocking Kavanaugh didn’t mean they were going to get a more moderate nominee.

We’re given two right-wingers; one is a hyper-partisan lying misogynist and perjurer who has made clear he wants to be Trump’s lackey; the other one might be a man of integrity and morals. But they should be treated as equally qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Got it, I guess.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

For those of us who think sexual assault allegations should be treated seriously and thoroughly investigated, this is irrelevant.

But it is relevant for the Democrats in Congress, because they don’t really think that. They just wanted to stall until after the mid-terms.

The allegations were thoroughly investigated, and found to be baseless. The Dems weren’t going to (and still won’t) accept any investigation that doesn’t find anything because “thorough” meant “stall for as long as possible”. Fortunately they failed. Even more fortunately, it increased GOP turnout in the mid-terms so that what could have been a blow-out receded back into a normal mid-term for the dominant party.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

But it is relevant for the Democrats in Congress, because they don’t really think that. They just wanted to stall until after the mid-terms.

The allegations were thoroughly investigated, and found to be baseless. The Dems weren’t going to (and still won’t) accept any investigation that doesn’t find anything because “thorough” meant “stall for as long as possible”. Fortunately they failed. Even more fortunately, it increased GOP turnout in the mid-terms so that what could have been a blow-out receded back into a normal mid-term for the dominant party.

Regards,
Shodan

The allegations were not even close to thoroughly investigated. The potential witnesses were not questioned under oath nor by senators.

If you think that perfunctory charade counts as a thorough investigation, then our understanding of the world is so profoundly different that there’s no point in further discussion.

[Corry_El]

@iiandyiiii

The allegations were not even close to thoroughly investigated. The potential witnesses were not questioned under oath nor by senators.

If you think that perfunctory charade counts as a thorough investigation, then our understanding of the world is so profoundly different that there’s no point in further discussion.

All the relevant people interviewed by committee staff and the FBI could be charged with crimes if they were shown to have lied. There was no extended public charade of the Democratic Senators publicly grandstanding, and bear baiting and smearing the witnesses perceived as backing Kavanaugh, I think you must mean.

Otherwise who was identified as a possible witness who was not interviewed either by the committee staff or FBI? Then there’s K and F who testified in a ridiculous circus for hours. The FBI was going to somehow produce extra witnesses?

I know your sense of yourself as non-partisan source of all goodness is unshakable, but you’re just reciting partisan talking points here.

[Eonwe]

@iiandyiiii

The allegations were not even close to thoroughly investigated. The potential witnesses were not questioned under oath nor by senators.

If you think that perfunctory charade counts as a thorough investigation, then our understanding of the world is so profoundly different that there’s no point in further discussion.

Haven’t you been reading? That’s exactly what he thinks:

@Shodan

We have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. Without any exception, they testify to a person of character and integrity, who has conducted both his work and his personal life with exemplary character.

@Eonwe

. . . actually, false. More like "we have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. We have ignored anyone who says anything other than the fact that you have exemplary character.

“without exception” is . . . an obviously inaccurate way to describe or analogize the events of this past fall.

@Eonwe

Here are just two statements by people who worked with Kavanaugh who don’t think he is a person of “character and integrity”.

@Shodan

So the two people you mentioned were interviewed, and ignored?

@Eonwe

Your claim is that people “without any exception” claim that Kavanaugh is a “person of character and integrity.”

[ul]
[li]There are people who claim that Kavanaugh is a person of character and integrity.[/li][li]There are people who claim the opposite.[/li][/ul]

So, either:

[ul]
[li]“Without any exception” is false, or[/li][li]The interview process is one that intentionally pre-selects a panel of interviewees to exclude anyone from that second group. This renders any conclusions about the interviews meaningless. (“I’m the best guy in the world. Just ask anyone who thinks so!”)[/li][/ul]

. . . at which point Shodan drops out of the conversation.

There is clearly, as you say, no point in further discussion.

[iiandyiiii]

@Corry_El

All the relevant people interviewed by committee staff and the FBI could be charged with crimes if they were shown to have lied. There was no extended public charade of the Democratic Senators publicly grandstanding, and bear baiting and smearing the witnesses perceived as backing Kavanaugh, I think you must mean.

Otherwise who was identified as a possible witness who was not interviewed either by the committee staff or FBI? Then there’s K and F who testified in a ridiculous circus for hours. The FBI was going to somehow produce extra witnesses?

I know your sense of yourself as non-partisan source of all goodness is unshakable, but you’re just reciting partisan talking points here.

I’m reciting facts - they didn’t try to corroborate Ford’s account by looking into Judge’s employment history; they didn’t ask Judge in detail about Kavanaugh’s drinking habits or if he ever blacked out; and much, much more. A thorough investigation would have looked into those things. It’s not credible to suggest that it’s reasonable not to look into those things for a real investigation.

[nelliebly]

@Magiver

Not having a shred of evidence is a substantial reason not to believe her. Put another way, only an emotional response to her testimony works as a reason to believe her.

Nope. Sexual assault is typically a crime with no evidence, or at least, one with evidence that gets disputed as being consensual. Semen? Consensual. Bruises? She likes it rough. Note that I was only talking about believability, not conviction in a criminal trial. And even a criminal trial depends on believability to a certain extent. An attorney I met who defends male juveniles charged with sexual assault told me she always goes for a jury trial, as judges tend to believe the victim, while juries tend to be sympathetic to the defendant. Note I’m not saying criminal trials should rest on belief alone. But in putting together the pieces, the jurors must decide whose story of that evidence to believe.

The fact is, if you–not as a juror but as a friend, relative, or spouse-- make it a rule to disbelieve any woman who tells you she’s been sexually assaulted simply because she can’t produce indisputable evidence, you’re unlikely to believe any woman. And if you DO believe her only BECAUSE she’s a friend, relative, or spouse, then you prove my point.

[Shodan]

@nelliebly

The fact is, if you–not as a juror but as a friend, relative, or spouse-- make it a rule to disbelieve any woman who tells you she’s been sexually assaulted simply because she can’t produce indisputable evidence, you’re unlikely to believe any woman. And if you DO believe her only BECAUSE she’s a friend, relative, or spouse, then you prove my point.

That’s sort of besides the point. None of us are friends, relatives, or spouses of either Kavanaugh or Ford. And certainly none of us are jurors- there could not have been a trial, because there was no probable cause even to believe a crime had been committed. People didn’t believe Ford, not because she failed to produce indisputable evidence - she produced no evidence at all. No physical evidence, no witnesses, thirty six years after the fact, and she wasn’t even sure where or when it happened.

And the Democrats in Congress didn’t believe her because she was a woman, and certainly not because of the evidence, of which there was none - they “believed” her because they wanted to use her to bring down a conservative judge.

Kavanaugh and Ford are both strangers to me. One is a distinguished judge, having served for decades without a hint of scandal, and with an exemplary record. Kavanaugh was vetted up the wazoo. Ford comes out of the blue, wanting to accuse him anonymously, not even willing to put her name behind the accusation. She is forced out by Feinstein and Eschoo because that’s all the Democrats can think to do. And there is not one scrap of evidence to back her up - none of the witnesses she claims were there agree, she made no mention of the incident for decades afterwards, she showed no signs of the “tailspin” she alleges it sent her into, her best friend and room mate in college says she never mentioned anything of the sort, and not only does Keyser fail to back her up that she was at the party, she says she has no recollection of ever being at any party with Kavanaugh.

It’s not a question of indisputable evidence - there is no evidence to back up Ford’s allegations at all.

If the message of the #metoo movement is “believe the woman”, and the woman has no evidence, the #metoo movement is mistaken.

Regards,
Shodan

[Magiver]

@nelliebly

Nope. Sexual assault is typically a crime with no evidence, or at least, one with evidence that gets disputed as being consensual. Semen? Consensual. Bruises? She likes it rough. Note that I was only talking about believability, not conviction in a criminal trial. And even a criminal trial depends on believability to a certain extent. An attorney I met who defends male juveniles charged with sexual assault told me she always goes for a jury trial, as judges tend to believe the victim, while juries tend to be sympathetic to the defendant. Note I’m not saying criminal trials should rest on belief alone. But in putting together the pieces, the jurors must decide whose story of that evidence to believe.

The fact is, if you–not as a juror but as a friend, relative, or spouse-- make it a rule to disbelieve any woman who tells you she’s been sexually assaulted simply because she can’t produce indisputable evidence, you’re unlikely to believe any woman. And if you DO believe her only BECAUSE she’s a friend, relative, or spouse, then you prove my point.

the fact is, people are convicted all the time. Ford had literally nothing in the way of evidence to back up her story. Feinstein was fully aware of this and chose to bring it up after the hearings had come to a conclusion knowing it was nothing but an unsubstantiated accusation.

[Sage_Rat]

@Magiver

right back at you. the person accusing your mother of murder doesn’t know when or where it happened and has no evidence to back up the claim. But people feel the need to believe the accusation because it sounded credible.

If some random person walked up to me on the street and said that my mom was a murderer, I would run through the following list of posibilities:

1. This person is crazy.
2. This person is a prankster.
3. This person might be truthful.

If they seem out-of-it or young and stupid, I’ll probably not think much about it. It’s an odd accusation to make to a person’s son, randomly, in the middle of the street. If you think that someone has murdered 35 people, you would report it to the police. There should be 35 people missing and, potentially, 35 bodies to find.

Certainly, if that person did go to the police, the police would consider it a viable mystery, despite having no evidence on which to go except this one person’s word. I would suggest that nearly all police investigations start on the basis of a single person’s word and are considered legitimate mysteries right up to the point where the evidence starts to lean towards the reporter being a liar. The default assumption is truth.

But that tangent aside, if a stable, financially secure, middle-aged person went on TV and made an accusation against my mother, then I would want to have a better understanding of what’s going on. I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. There’s nothing to prevent someone close to you from being a secret serial killer, and I have no desire to protect someone who has murdered people, regardless of their relationship to me. And certainly something is going on. An extreme statement has been made, and that’s a strange to do. We don’t have to assume that the accusation is true to classify the state of affairs a mystery. Even if an obviously crazy person came up to me on the street and accused my mother of being a murderer, I’d still consider that a bit of a mystery because that’s a strange and specific accusation to make. What in that crazy person’s history brought them to use that as their default accusation? Maybe they’re admitting to something they have done in their past. Who knows. It’s a mystery.

But now if some random woman tells me, out of the blue, that she’s been raped, personally I’m liable to believe her. Again, we might include the “crazy or prankster” potentials. We’re not going straight from believing that this person is probably telling the truth to going out and arresting someone. But short of that person seeming like they’re tripping on acid, I’d give a greater than even odds that they were saying it because it was true.

Serial murder by some random housewife, operating secretly, and without showing any signs of mental illness, is a fairly unlikely occurrence. The odds that someone is just saying something silly is the far more likely potential, up to the point where they go to the police or go in front of Congress.

A 20 year old frat boy doing something awful while drunk? I see no strong reason to discount the likelihood out of hand. Again, I’m not going to pick him up and arrest him. It’s entirely possible that the person who is telling me that this guy raped her suffered a case of mistaken identity, misunderstood his intentions, etc. But I’m not going to absolve the guy of all potential to have committed the crime. It’s fully within the realm of reason and likelihood.

And what reason would I have to discount the woman’s statement, when she’s saying something that falls within the realm of possibility, who is not young, not crazy, etc.? Why would I go beyond accepting that it’s a question to which I’ll never know an answer to outright denying the possibility that it could have ever happened?

Why would I believe that her and all of the other millions of women in the country are all liars by default, minus evidence to the contrary? That would be insane. Assuming someone to be lying, when they’re saying something completely reasonable and probable, just because you have no evidence is stupid.

If someone tells me that they went to Vegas as a kid, once, but doesn’t have any photos of it, why would I assume that they’re lying? It’s something within the realm of reason, and while I can’t be certain it’s true, it would just be insane to treat that person as a liar.

If someone tells me that they went to the Moon and built a sand castle as a kid, then we’re getting into the territory where we doubt by default.

This is all down to probabilities. What are the relative odds that the event happened and that someone would lie, given what we know about them and that sort of event?

But saying that the odds are 51% that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted a woman while drunk, once, 35 years ago doesn’t mean that we arrest him. But it also doesn’t mean that we tell Christine Ford to stop telling stories.

[Magiver]

@Sage_Rat

Certainly, if that person did go to the police, the police would consider it a viable mystery, .

if the person didn’t know where, when or had any evidence to back it up then no, it would not be considered a viable mystery.

[DrDeth]

@Shodan

She is forced out by Feinstein and Eschoo because that’s all the Democrats can think to do.

As shown by my cite earlier, Feinstein had nothing whatsoever to do with Ford being outed.