Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 15:56:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 18, 2018 16:04:17 GMT -5
Heh. It seems all the Amazon reviews have been written in the last week, since the association with Kavanaugh emerged. I'm betting Judge is getting more sales now than he has in the entire time since this thing was published.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 16:06:30 GMT -5
I have to admit I'm considering buying it out of sheer curiosity.
ETA:
Looks like it's not available on Amazon anymore, so I'd probably have to work to get it. Not sure I'm THAT curious.
I am curious about the fact that he's unwilling to testify, though. Given the importance, I think they should subpoena him. If all he can say is "I can't remember", well, so be it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 16:14:11 GMT -5
(Okay, so I know it was a joke. But I have to note that I wouldn't consider making that remark about high school. I didn't do anything that fell beyond the scope of normal teenage dumbassness. I drank underage. I skipped a class now and then. I got hot and heavy with my boyfriend. Yawn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 17:11:45 GMT -5
I was just thinking...
I know (and by know, I mean know pretty well to very well personally and/or professionally) more than half a dozen federal judges. I probably know more than that--I'm not counting classmates I lost track of years ago who have gotten a seat when I wasn't paying attention). Two more people I know have been nominated and are pending confirmation. I like most of them. I rather dislike one of them.
I don't have any dirt on any of them that would make me think any of them shouldn't be on the bench. There's one who I personally think isn't the best choice, but it's an opinion, not an "I have juicy dirt that would tank his/her nomination."
If during their confirmation hearings, someone had falsely alleged that I was a witness to a disqualifying incident, I would step up immediately to swear under oath it wasn't true. Yes, this includes for the person I don't particularly like, and doubly so for the ones I consider friends. I would consider that a duty to my country (as well as to my friend, if that were applicable).
The only reason I can fathom for not doing so is that, for whatever reason, I could not truthfully swear it, and did not want my saying so to potentially hurt my friend.
This guy is not shy about his own peccadillos -- he wrote a book about them. If really, truly, he remembers nothing like this incident, his saying so under oath would be a powerful help to Kavanaugh. (Some might doubt him, but it would certainly give cover to anyone who wants to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt.) His refusing to do so, on the other hand, is certainly something that will weigh against Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 18, 2018 19:05:27 GMT -5
I agree that if he did what he's accused of doing, that isn't "normal teenage hijinks," it's a profoundly disordered attitude towards women and sexual entitlement. Doesn't mean he's the same person he was at 17 or that he hasn't since then grown, matured, and now looks back on his actions then with shame and regret. But it certainly justifies asking him some hard questions about that. If he had said something weaselly like we normally hear in these situations, e.g., "I don't exactly remember what happened but I'm very sorry if I somehow made her feel uncomfortable blah blah blah" I'd say punt him, he's done. As I understand it, though, he's flatly denying it ever happened. So either she is a bald-faced liar, or he is, or she really is profoundly confused about what really happened - and I wouldn't rule this out. People's memories are actually pretty bad, and it would be very easy for her to have filled in details around a traumatic event that after many years she has become absolutely convinced are true, even though they aren't. Knowing what we know about how bad eyewitness testimony is, I can't say it's impossible that she really, truly remembers Kavanaugh doing this to her when he didn't. Excuse me? Are you really saying the options here are Professor Christine Blasey Ford is "a bald-faced liar" (or Kavanaugh is) or she is "profoundly confused about what really happened" and therefore is unreliable and not to be believed?
Let's rewrite that sentence, shall we? So either he is a bald-faced liar, or he is, or he really is profoundly confused about what happened---and I wouldn't rule this out.
I suggest there's a third option. Ford is telling the truth.
Let's be clear here: the burden of proof is on Ford and how she clears that bar seems impossible for me to believe she can. To be sure, even the accusation could be enough to sink Kavanaugh's nomination and if more women come forward with credible allegations against him, there's no way Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell can ram this nomination through before the November election. Trump has already said he doesn't want the FBI to step in and start an investigation, so it's obvious the priority for the Republicans is to hurry up and get Kavanaugh on the Court before more shoes drop.
This is not how anyone should be elevated for a lifetime gig. I don't care what anyone's political views are. This is not how this is supposed to work.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 18, 2018 20:09:33 GMT -5
I think that third option is already fully subsumed under the "he is a bald-faced liar" one.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 18, 2018 21:01:35 GMT -5
I think that third option is already fully subsumed under the "he is a bald-faced liar" one. Well, no, because he could be not "bald-faced lying" when he says it never happened. He could be not remembering because he was shit-faced drunk, or because it was so inconsequential to him at the time that it didn't make it to the "things I remember from high school 35 years ago" memory vault.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 18, 2018 21:40:44 GMT -5
So either she is a bald-faced liar, or he is, or she really is profoundly confused about what really happened - and I wouldn't rule this out. People's memories are actually pretty bad, and it would be very easy for her to have filled in details around a traumatic event that after many years she has become absolutely convinced are true, even though they aren't. Knowing what we know about how bad eyewitness testimony is, I can't say it's impossible that she really, truly remembers Kavanaugh doing this to her when he didn't. It is extremely irritating to me that you have overlooked any possible issues with Kavanaugh's memory in your vigilance in pointing out potential problems with Dr. Ford's memory. Which, by the way, I find ridiculous. By all accounts, she knew exactly who he was. To suggest that this particular incident could be a case of mistaken identity is quite a stretch, if I'm being a kind. If I'm not, it's pretty fucking absurd.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Sept 19, 2018 0:22:43 GMT -5
I think it is probable that Professor Ford is telling the truth.
I also think it is probable that Kavanaugh has absolutely no recollection of the event.
I've seen a videotape my friend took during our time in the Marines. I was doing some, ahem, rather questionable stuff in the Philippines. If I hadn't seen the tape I would swear nothing like that ever happened. I literally have zero recollection of the events of that night other than getting extremely drunk.
So yeah, I can believe Kavanaugh could do some really questionable stuff and have no recollection of it. I'm not sure this allegation is going to amount to much unless more women step forward and establish a pattern of bad behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 7:13:09 GMT -5
Why, indeed.
Juanita Broaddrick is also busy calling Professor Ford a liar on Twitter.
I check on 'ol Juanita every time one of these allegations arises, and she's depressingly dependable. If a woman accuses a Democrat, she is a victim who must be championed and believed. If a woman accuses a Republican, she is a lying schemer.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 19, 2018 8:05:16 GMT -5
Excuse me? Are you really saying the options here are Professor Christine Blasey Ford is "a bald-faced liar" (or Kavanaugh is) or she is "profoundly confused about what really happened" and therefore is unreliable and not to be believed?
Let's rewrite that sentence, shall we? So either he is a bald-faced liar, or he is, or he really is profoundly confused about what happened---and I wouldn't rule this out.
I suggest there's a third option. Ford is telling the truth.
I'm saying there are three options: 1. Ford is telling the truth, and Kavanaugh is a bald-faced liar. 2. Kavanaugh is telling the truth, and Ford is a bald-faced liar. 3. They are both more or less telling the truth as they recall it, and the actual truth is that something happened to Ford, but Kavanaugh did not do what Ford thinks he did. (Your option I guess is a fourth one: that Kavanaugh really did what Ford says he did, but he genuinely does not recall doing it. I think that is the least likely, though.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 19, 2018 8:17:04 GMT -5
So either she is a bald-faced liar, or he is, or she really is profoundly confused about what really happened - and I wouldn't rule this out. People's memories are actually pretty bad, and it would be very easy for her to have filled in details around a traumatic event that after many years she has become absolutely convinced are true, even though they aren't. Knowing what we know about how bad eyewitness testimony is, I can't say it's impossible that she really, truly remembers Kavanaugh doing this to her when he didn't. It is extremely irritating to me that you have overlooked any possible issues with Kavanaugh's memory in your vigilance in pointing out potential problems with Dr. Ford's memory. Which, by the way, I find ridiculous. By all accounts, she knew exactly who he was. To suggest that this particular incident could be a case of mistaken identity is quite a stretch, if I'm being a kind. If I'm not, it's pretty fucking absurd. All right, as I noted to NT, yes, it's possible Kavanaugh was so wasted he doesn't remember the incident at all and has now convinced himself she is making it all up. But I frankly doubt that. If her version of events is accurate, I suspect he remembers at least some of it, or the aftermath, or has heard enough from other people who were there to know she's not just making it up. Or, if he were being honest with himself, knows that he was so wasted that what she says could be true. Not that I expect he would ever admit that. What I actually believe is most likely is that Ford is being both truthful and accurate, and I already noted that I agree with the rest of you that he should absolutely not be confirmed unless and until he can be completely cleared of this accusation. I brought up possible problems with Ford's account because, I'm sorry, that does happen. Two drunk teenagers at a party, and 35 years later she remembers being assaulted (almost certainly true) but has an unshakeable belief in who the culprit was and what he did that's actually wrong. I did not bring them up because I think she's lying, I brought them up because this thread is about the truth (and likelihood of knowing it) behind the accusations. I find it extremely irritating that you're casting aspersions on me because I dared to say anything other than "Yes, obviously everything she says must be taken at face value and the only reasonable conclusion any decent and right-thinking person can come to is that Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist." I can acknowledge that that is probably, in fact, correct while also observing that there is reason to question it. That's what I fucking do. I question every narrative, and it's not because I like Kavanaugh or because I think that women frequently lie about rape or whatever. FFS, as you are so fond of saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 8:48:50 GMT -5
Quick MOD NOTE (no one is in trouble) -- just a reminder to everyone to stay on the right side of the line, take a deep breath before posting, and walk away from your computer if you need to. That's not directed at anyone in the thread -- so far, IMO, everyone is fine -- I just see potential for this conversation to get heated. That's all. Carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 9:09:04 GMT -5
FWIW, I understood Amadan to be giving the alternative -- either Kavanaugh is lying or Ford is.
I think the possibility that Kavanaugh and his friend's memory might be foggier than Ford's is actually a likely one. K and his friend were both heavy-duty drinkers at the time, and the friend has openly discussed his frequent blackouts. I also think it likely that this incident was highly traumatic to Ford, but to Kavanaugh and his friend, circa 1983, was just an hilarious drunken lark. For that reason, it's quite likely it would have a prominent place in her memory 35 years later, but not so much in theirs. (Go watch a 1980s teen movie -- quite seriously, many were just not woke at all about acquaintance rape. Ask a bunch of women in their 40s and upward--we all have stories, I guarantee it, and at the time, I'll bet many of us felt shamed rather than righteously angry.)
I reject the possibility that she was confused as to Kavanaugh's identity. It was a tiny party, and she knew him. It wasn't some huge frat party with him being one of dozens of guys she'd never seen before. This is not the first time she's brought up the accusation, as her therapist notes, among other things, prove.
I think the choices come down to:
(1) Kavanaugh is lying. (2) Ford is lying. (3) Kavanaugh's memory is blacked out (4) Kavanaugh's memory is just fuzzy enough that he's repainted the episode as more benign than it was
As I have stated more than once, I don't go on auto-believe with this type of accusation. But as I'm stated in previous posts, I think there are a few very good reasons to grant her credence. She's making a significant sacrifice coming forward, for one thing, and the fact that the friend doesn't want to step up and say under oath that it never happened says worlds to me--at best, he's not sure. It also says worlds to me that Kavanaugh's backers are trying to ram this through quickly without, e.g., compelling Kavanaugh's friend to speak under oath or taking more time to look into this. Frankly, I don't think they are any too sure either. And they've been playing hide-the-ball with Kavanaugh's record all along. That's not the way this is supposed to work, which is why I've had doubts about Kavanaugh all along (doubts I did not have about Gorsuch). What's the huge rush to fill this seat? Scalia's seat went empty for how long?
And while in some cases, like criminal trials, the accused gets the benefit of any doubt, I don't think that's the case when we're talking about a Supreme Court nomination. I think a much higher standard applies, not just to a defendant in a criminal trial, but even to an elected official -- both because it's a lifetime appointment and because it is such a very revered position. The electorate is gonna do what the electorate is gonna do, and if they put in a Roy Moore, well, that's bad, but them's the breaks. But an appointed and confirmed SCOTUS justice is something else. We can't just vote out a Supreme Court justice and he has the power to shape the nation for years to come. Something this serious should not be an asterisk on a Supreme Court Justice.
|
|