Doubt is precisely why we shouldn’t consider Ford’s claims, in theabsence of supporting evidence, to be true.
I’ve repeatedly said he shouldn’t be a supreme court judge. There are many good reasons for that. But that he only probably didn’t try to rape someone isn’t one of them.
I’d probably do a better job than Kavanaugh. For one thing, I wouldn’t expect anyone to remain in a closet, being out of mine.
Steophan is always going to fall on the side of authority. He’s a fascist apologist and always has been.
Either that, or he’s so embarrassed to agree with us that he covers it up by yelling at us.
Sure, there is. There is always value in making sure someone’s plausible seeming lies are refuted. People have this tendency to keep reading what people say after they are established as a liar, and even sometimes think “maybe he has a point.”
Sure, there is also the other issue of feeding a troll, or letting them get under your skin. And people are less likely to believe a known liar. But it’s a balance issue, not a simple black and white choice.
Also, there’s the value in just making the bad guy feel like an idiot who can’t even lie effectively. Maybe they’ll eventually stop trying, when it keeps on not working.
I gotta say, iiiiiiiiiiandyiiiiiiii did a number on Steophan. When Steophan is mentioned, the first thing I think is “oh yeah, that idiot who lied about andy with all the i’s, got caught in his lie and refused to back down”.
No, I’m not making a claim here. Steophan says there’s no record of any party that Ford was at. There are records of parties. Until he proves that Ford was at none of them, he is making a baseless assertion. Because if she was at any one of the events on Kavanaugh’s calendar,whether there’s a record of it or not, then that statement would be false. Does he have proof that she was at none of those gatherings? Of course not.
He could choose to make a narrower claim, that there is no record, other than Ford’s recollection and testimony, of Ford having been at a party that Kavanaugh was at. If he said that, that would be true as far as we know.
But what we have in Steophan is someone who is either (a) all too willing to make baseless assertions in his arguments, and rely on their truth, or (b) too dumb to even realize what he’s claiming to be true.
Or both. It could definitely be the former with respect to some claims, and the latter with respect to others.
Oh, now we’re back to ‘actual evidence that it didn’t happen.’
Yeah, “nobody can remember a casual and unremarkable gathering from 35 years ago” is “actual evidence that it didn’t happen.”
After you’ve twisted the truth into a pretzel, do you put mustard on it before you swallow your own bullshit?
Yes, it literally is evidence that it didn’t happen. I’m not claiming that it’s incontrovertible proof that it didn’t happen but it is, in actual, literal fact, evidence for that position.
There could be a debate about how strong the evidence is, and whether one should consider it as enough to exonorate Kavanaugh, but your absolutist position in defiance of the facts in front of you is just silly.
No, it wouldn’t. Unless the record names or otherwise identifies her, it is not a record of her being at the party. I have no idea how you find this hard to understand.
Her recollection and testimony is not a record, so it remains that there is (as far as we know) no record of Ford attending a party with Kavanaugh.
I, in affording Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt he is morally and legally entitled to, am not the one making baseless assertions. I am simply observing that there is, in fact, evidence he was never in a position to act as Ford claims he did, and stating my opinion that said evidence is strong enough that it is probable he did not, in fact, assault her in the manner and place she claims.
It’s neither, as you would know were you able to read for comprehension. It is not a baseless assertion to say that no-one but her remembers any party like the one she describes, and that none of Kavanaugh’s records describe such a party. They are undisputable facts (to the best of my knowledge, anyway, if anyone has an interview with someone who remembers the party or evidence that she wa mentioned in any of the calenders or journal entries, please let me know).
You are the one piling inferences on inferences to claim proof for the result you’ve pre-judged to be true.
Check me if I am wrong, but her therapist cannot corroborate her story. At best, she could report what Ford told her. Same with anyone who related what they were told by her. A witness who can place all three of them at the party at the same time would be corroboration. A witness overhearing Kavanaugh and friend confessing to what they did on that night would be corroboration. Did we have that? If so, I missed it and apologize.
Look. I hate Trump. I don’t like Kavanaugh any better. But I no reason to believe or disbelieve either Kavanaugh or Ford on this matter.
People were clamoring for an FBI investigation and I was asking what they though the FBI could uncover at this late date. What facts could be gathered? Proving a negative is damn near impossible. There is no way for anyone to prove did do it. And there is no way to prove he didn’t do it. The best they could get is someone’s memory and memory is inherently fallible and changes over time. So unless one of the participants fesses up, there is no way we can know anything.
Her therapist’s notes only answer the assertion that she may have made it all up on the spur of the moment. That was the whole point,and the only point, of that evidence.
Minor point, but additionally the therapist could point out that memories of emotional situations can be jumbled, with certain parts being crisp and clear, while other parts are absent.
And the testimony of the alleged victim isn’t.
There just ain’t enough rolleyes.
Not really. Its strength is zero. That’s why it’s not evidence.
There is no expectation that one would remember a particular random, unremarkable get-together from 36 years ago. So failure to remember doesn’t mean anything.
That’s my
, haw haw haw.
Just a reminder that people were claiming she made this up in order to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.
The persons she told before Kavanaugh was nominated can vouch for the fact that she had mentioned this attack years before Kavanaugh was nominated. This proves that that attack on her credibility was false.
Does this prove Kavanaugh attacked her? Of course not. But her having discussed the attack with others at a time when it was of no consequence to anyone but herself does increases the likelihood of her veracity.
One obvious place was with the woman who claimed on Facebook that it was being generally talked about shortly afterwards. She apparently didn’t expect that her post would go viral, and quickly issued a vague disclaimer.
Maybe she was making it up, or maybe her recollection was faulty. But maybe she remembered accurately. The FBI could sort that out pretty quickly, I’d expect. And they could ask her who she remembered talking about it, and talk to them, and see what people remembered. Maybe Kavanaugh and/or Judge told their version of the story to friends at the time, and if so, maybe there are people who remember that story. That’s the sort of thing an investigation could walk back to the source. Decades later, there are hardly any guarantees, but it’s also clear that Kavanaugh’s longtime friend Don McGahn felt that an investigation would have been bad news for Kavanaugh.
Also, of course, there is Deborah Ramirez’ largely overlooked story, and (other than the FBI interviewing her personally) apparently uninvestigated, despite people coming forward who remembered hearing of the incident contemporaneously.
And finally, of course, there are the host of statements that Kavanaugh has made about his past - about both his high school and college days, and his more recent past in the Bush Administration - that it sure looks like he was lying in his testimony, either in his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, or in those for the D.C. Circuit a dozen years ago. IANAL, so I don’t know what it takes to claim a dishonest statement under oath is perjury. Sen. Wyden has accused Kavanaugh of perjuring himself. An FBI investigation could have been instrumental in determining whether he did so. (Could still be.)
Well now, at least you’re retreating to a more defensible claim, that there is no record of her being at the party.
That’s a wise decision. But please don’t pretend you didn’t make the indefensible claim that there’s no record of any party that she was at. Because, you know, we can roll tape.
Didn’t say it was. I was just pointing out the dissonance between your claim that her remembrance isn’t evidence, but other persons’ failure to remember an unremarkable event after decades had passed, somehow IS.
I know it’s easier to argue against the things I didn’t say, rather than the things I did.
But please try to restrain yourself. It’s not like we can’t see what we said earlier.
Wait, I’m losing track. So you did assault someone in high school?
Isn’t what, exactly? It isn’t corroborated by any of the other evidence, but it certainly is evidence. Specifically, it is evidence that Ford believes that the things she claimed happened.
Why do you keep repeating demonstrably false statements? It is evidence that no-one bar Ford remembers the alleged get together, nor anything like it.
It’s not just that no-one remembers a specfic get together, although that would be mildly convincing on its own. It’s that they remember no get-togethers of the sort Ford describes - neither Kavanaugh nor Judge remember taking an unwilling girl into a bedroom, they don’t remember Ford ever being present at a party with them, and the others alleged to be there also remember nothing of the sort.
Also, it’s never been a particular, specific gathering that’s been talked about, as Ford (for whatever reason) has not provided details of the place or even the year it allegedly occurred. That alone, frankly, would be enough to dismiss the allegation without any actual corroboration, as it’s impossible for Kavanaugh to defend against such a non-specific claim with anything more than to say he never touched her.
Well, quite.
Yes, RTFirefly sexually abused me in high school. There’s no actual evidence that it happened, and plenty of evidence that he was nowhere near me at the time, but that’s irrelevant. He did it, and should be shunned.
You have a tape of her attending the party? Please, contact the FBI immediately, don’t just sit there typing shit to an audience of idiots. You have a President who can do that, sfter all.
There is no record of any party attended by Ford and Kavanaugh. Not one. It does not exist, and your foolish attempt to redefine terms will not work.
I’ve never claimed her remembrance isn’t evidence. It is, as I have said many, many times, evidence that is both uncorroborated and refuted by the other evidence we have. But, really, as an uncorroborated statement all that’s needed to balance the probablilities is a simple denial - but we have much more than that. We have multiple denials, and thorough documentary evidence of Kavanaugh’s actions that, for some reason, doesn’t mention her at all.
If that’s not enough for you what precisely would lead you to believe Kavanaugh’s innocence? If there is nothing, then your opinion here is worthless.
You could perhaps try the same thing. Learn the difference between a verbal account and a record, and between evidence and proof, then you might be able to firstly understand my argument, and secondly at least attempt to refute it without coming off as an illiterate dullard.