As shown by my cite earlier, Feinstein had nothing whatsoever to do with Ford being outed.
For all that is good and holy iiandyiiii, read the damn statements themselves. Not the second hand OP EDs, the actual records. Since, they did everything you claim they failed to do. They interviewed Judge and Leyland, multiple times. As well as others. They identified the relevant locations, ie the club as well as the then Miss Blasey’s house. They also examined the July 1st date. They did exactly what is to be expected in a “real” investigation. So, unless your definition of “real” investigation is “declared him guilty”, not sure what more they could have done.
Not gonna just take your word for it. I looked and didn’t find those things that I specifically pointed out.
Although you don’t specifically mention the Reverend Thomas Bayes (1701–1761), you approach the issue the same way he would, along with every other logician, statistician or mathematician. (The concept of comparing conditioned probabilities is NOT the part of Bayesian analysis which is controversial.)
However there is not a single one of Kavanaugh’s supporters who has the vaguest respect for, or understanding of, logic, statistics or mathematics.
[quote=“Shodan, post:196, topic:824383”]
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.
First, it’s NOT besides the point. Belief plays an important role, whether in a criminal trial, a civil trial, a confirmation hearing, a conversation with the victim, or watching from the sidelines two people you don’t know first-hand.
Now let’s move to the question of recalling the date. People seldom recall the exact date something traumatic happened unless it’s intrinsic to the event. I can recall with absolute clarity every detail of the sexual assault I experienced, but I can’t tell you the exact date because, fighting for my life and all, I wasn’t thinking, “January 9th! Must remember January 9th!”
I DO recall where, but then, the assault happened in a distinctive place: the park by my house. I was SO close to home, and I kept willing people to look out their windows. So that was intrinsic. If it had happened at one of numerous high school parties I attended, I might not recall whose house it was because that wouldn’t be relevant to the assault. See how that works?
Now let’s move on to nobody else recalls. People don’t recall what is not significant to them. Wouldn’t the assault of a friend be significant? Not necessarily. Of the two people I told (besides my parents), one said I gave such minimal details that she thought I’d encountered a flasher. The other didn’t recall the conversation at all–possibly because at the time, she was dealing getting date-raped a few months earlier.
You’re going to say there’s still no proof, and you’re right. My point is that proof or not, you’re not predisposed to believe someone or their proof you don’t want to believe, such as someone on the opposing team, but are predisposed to believe the player on your team.
Rising above that to look and listen objectively for *clues in the telling *so you can form a more objective belief? Tough but important.
The fact that Ford doesn’t remember the date or location is not evidence that it happened. The fact that nobody else remembered it is also not evidence that it happened. The fact that Keyser does not recall ever being at a party with Kavanaugh is not evidence that it happened.
Is that what you meant by “looking for clues in the telling”? When I do that, I find that there is no evidence that it happened.
The people who are believing things without evidence in this case are Democrats, and they are doing so because of partisan political reasons. And they probably don’t even believe it happened - they don’t care if it happened or not. They just wanted to stop Kavanaugh.
Regards,
Shodan
How does someone mount a reasonable defense when the accusation is so vague?
Suppose you pick someone out of a police line up and declare with 100% percent certainty that was the man who assaulted you, but in reality, you are wrong. ** It happens. ** You claim the assault happened between the months of June and August.
Is this man guilty because he does not have an alibi for every single day of those three months?
“How a selfie saved a Texas man from 99 years in prison”
A former girlfriend said that two days earlier, he had broken into her home and sliced an “X” into her chest with a box cutter.
The two dated several years earlier, but Precopia couldn’t remember the last time the two had contact.
On the night of the alleged attack, Precopia was with his mother, Erin, at a Northwest Austin hotel about 65 miles from the accuser’s home. There were sworn affidavits from several people who were with him that evening, as well as photos posted on Facebook. Those photos were timestamped and geo-located.
Precopia’s accuser told police that the two had a troubled relationship when they dated in high school several years ago, and she cited that as a reason she reported that he assaulted her. My bolding.
This is false. There are a metric fuck ton of indications that he blacked out.
Kavanaugh was probably a net positive for the democrats.
There were eleven senate races in swing states that featured a sitting senator who cast a Kavanaugh vote. No votes went 9-1. Yes votes went 0-1.
Dems got over 59 million votes in house races. A record for either party in a midterm election. Team D won the two party house vote by more than 8 points.
Women voted for Dem house candidates 59 - 40. Plus 19! Compare to D+4 in 2014 and R+1 in 2010 in the last two midterms.
The idea that the Kavanaugh effect helped Republicans is something data averse pundits write about to get clicks. It is not grounded in reality.
That statement is manifestly false, since I’m strongly inclined to believe Ford and I’m not a Democrat. In fact I’m not even American. The makeup of the US Supreme Court makes no difference in my life. I’m an outsider looking in and trying to make a judgment based on the probabilities indicated by the evidence (as I described in this post), as well as how those probabilities should influence default presumptions in these circumstances.
The latter point means that this is not a trial, and the presumptions of innocence absent overwhelming evidence of guilt do not apply as they do in a criminal trial, contrary to what Republican partisans would like everyone to believe. Cite for this: all the actions that have justifiably been taken by employers against those accused of sexual misconduct based on reasonable probability of the truthfulness of allegations made against them, yet only a very small number of the allegations were evidentially strong enough to support criminal convictions. Frankly I tend to be dubious of accusations made by former spouses or partners, especially when the relationship was rocky, but much less so about accusations of what is essentially attempted rape when made by someone with no apparent reason for animosity, and made in a very credible and compelling fashion, and moreover, consistent with evidence that the accused at the time was something of a drunken lout subject to drunken blackouts.
One critical factor here is the damage that the allegations do to the reputation of the institutions that the accused were associated with, and their image in the public mind – something critically important for the Supreme Court above all other institutions. As John Roberts is acutely aware, for the Supreme Court, the perception of ethics and integrity is in the final analysis the basis of its power. It is unconscionable to me, as it should be to any reasonable person, that these standards should be thrown out the window when assessing the moral and ethical suitability of a candidate for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important positions in the governance of the nation.
Here is the difference- in a criminal trial, guilt must be proven *beyond all reasonable doubt. *In a job interview, only a indication of guilt should be enough. probable cause.
So, if Ford accused Kavanaugh in a criminal case, sure yeah, I’d vote Not Guilty.
But in a hearing? Enough probable cause for me to say - *OK, next Guy, let’s leave him where he is. *
Because there are *lots *of judges, and the next one won’t have these vile accusations. Gorsuch didn’t. Even tho I am not a fan of his (Gorsuch) political leanings, no one doubts his honesty and probity. The Dems were right to give him a solid grilling and then let him get in.
So for you, vile accusations constitute probable cause?
The statement is true. And for someone who doesn’t care about the make up of the Supreme Court, you sure spend a lot of time complaining about it.
No, it wasn’t based on evidence, since no evidence is available except negative evidence tending to discredit Ford’s allegations.
We aren’t talking about the presumption of innocence - we are talking about Democrats and liberals who “believe” in things for which there is no evidence.
This part is true. Swetnick and Feinstein and Booker and Ford ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Regards,
Shodan
Amazing the fantasies people will construct, including about the beliefs of others, just to rationalize defending the party of sexual assault. One day, I’m hopeful it will click with even the most conservative Americans that sexual assault allegations should be treated with seriousness and fully investigated, even when such an investigation might harm a powerful conservative, but that day is not today, unfortunately.
Feinstein had everything to do with bringing it to the hearings. It was a political stunt designed to smear someone.
But let’s summarize how that reads. At the end of the hearings Democrats mention they have an anonymous person who claims she wasn’t raped 30 years ago but thought it might happen. She doesn’t remember where or when it happened and has no witnesses to back it up. But we’d like this to be investigated.
On what planet would you find this acceptable to have your good name and career jeopardized by an anonymous accuser with no evidence.
Being “outed” is nothing but a bullshit soundbite.
It’s amazing the fantasies people will believe absent even the tiniest bit of evidence. It’s quite easy to defend the innocent when there is no evidence against them.
the term “fully investigated” is a nonsense soundbite. No amount of time will ever satisfy the term. The person making the accusation couldn’t produce any evidence to back it up and the witnesses provided didn’t know anything about it. Despite this lack of evidence it was investigated. It was accorded all the investigation the lack of evidence indicated.
I truly don’t understand what you don’t understand about this. You’ve taken your belief in a completely unsubstantiated accusation and blamed conservatives for not taking it seriously. It was taken seriously. When there is no evidence anything occurred then that logical conclusion is that it didn’t occur.
Hard to take that seriously when the sandbagging by Trump and the Republicans continues to be ignored.
The sandbagging began and ended with Ford’s inability to produce any evidence.
There is no evidence of it.
This is false. There is lots and lots of evidence of it.