Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 10:12:59 GMT -5
On the "his memory of this might be white-washed" theme --
When I was in late elementary and middle school, I lived in terror of one particular neighborhood girl. She was two years older than I was and a terrible bully. She (often with a buddy or two of hers) routinely shoved me around and mocked me. I was small and studious, and something about me screamed "target" to her. I'd walk blocks out of my way to avoid the street where she lived.
Anyway, fast forward a couple of decades. She tried to friend me on Facebook. Don't go thinking she wanted to apologize -- she didn't. She just vaguely remembered I was a neighborhood girl and she was one of those people who friends everyone whose name rings a bell. (She had hundreds of facebook friends.) The events I remembered as terrifying and blighting, she remembered as just goofing around -- including that time she shoved me flat on the sidewalk, flanked by three of her large friends, and told me I was a lesbian and everyone knew it and hated me. (At the time, I didn't even know what a lesbian was.
And hey, she wasn't even drunk. It's just that to her, it was no biggie. She wasn't traumatized. She was just having fun with friends. It was just oversensitive little me who remembered it as horrible.
To this day, I can see her sneering face and those of her friends looming over me as I lay on the sidewalk at the corner of McKoon and Roselle. I was scared. I was humiliated. I never told my parents. And to her, it was just another day.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 19, 2018 10:23:23 GMT -5
I think those are entirely possible explanations of young Kavanaugh's behavior, and memories thereof.
I also think my theory is possible.
We're likely never going to know for sure.
I don't know how many times I have to say that I think Ford's account is probably accurate, and that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed unless he can make a very convincing case for why her account is not true. (Which would obviously require a lot more than just him saying "She's a liar or misremembering.")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 11:03:34 GMT -5
I don't know how many times I have to say that I think Ford's account is probably accurate, and that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed unless he can make a very convincing case for why her account is not true. (Which would obviously require a lot more than just him saying "She's a liar or misremembering.") FWIW, I understand that you're saying this. Another shoe has dropped. To be fair, this person has not been vetted. But... I truly do not think this confirmation should go forward without examining into this. All of these people who claim or are alleged to have knowledge about this should make statements under oath (not just statements) and submit to questioning. I think some investigation should be done -- others were at this party, Ms. Ford describes the layout of the house and some of the people there. Even thirty-five years later, this might jog memories. Also, since Ms. Ford is getting death threats and I hear is now essentially in hiding, something should be done to give her and her family some protection while this is going on.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 19, 2018 15:07:14 GMT -5
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. So you find this possible, but extremely unlikely, so that's why you didn't mention it? On the other hand, you find it possible, and, I assume, *not* extremely unlikely that Ford is misremembering what happened to her and/or who her assailant was? You find this *more* likely than the situation above? That's where I have a problem - not merely that you doubt her story, but that, apparently, Kavanaugh's (the drunk guy's) version of events is more reliable than Ford's version, assuming both of them are telling the truth as they see it. You seem to have a lot more confidence in his memory and cognition than hers, and I find that ridiculous. That's the logical conclusion, and not because "always believe the victim" or "#metoo" or whatever, but because of the allegations and the evidence. She wasn't drunk (unless she's lying). Except, I didn't say that, or anything close to it. I didn't have a problem with you saying, "either he's lying or she's lying." See? FFS, you're awfully touchy today.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 19, 2018 15:20:16 GMT -5
Barring some real evidence that she is purposefully lying (I don't think she is), I think Kavanaugh's nomination is in real jeopardy and I think Trump and the Repub leadership realize this, though they're publicly backing Kavanaugh. It won't take much for them to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, imo.
If that happens, the midterms will be even more entertaining...
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 19, 2018 15:34:06 GMT -5
That's where I have a problem - not merely that you doubt her story, but that, apparently, Kavanaugh's (the drunk guy's) version of events is more reliable than Ford's version, assuming both of them are telling the truth as they see it.
Maybe I am just more skeptical than you and Cass are about people "misremembering" things. I think that girl who bullied Cass probably remembers perfectly well pushing her onto the sidewalk and threatening her. It might not be a big deal in her mind, she might think she was just a kid doing stupid kid stuff, but I doubt she completely forgot it or remembers them as jovial schoolmates who once had a little tiff. The only reason I give any credence at all to the theory that Kavanaugh might genuinely not remember what happened clearly is alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 19, 2018 15:56:27 GMT -5
Barring some real evidence that she is purposefully lying (I don't think she is), I think Kavanaugh's nomination is in real jeopardy and I think Trump and the Repub leadership realize this, though they're publicly backing Kavanaugh. It won't take much for them to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, imo. If that happens, the midterms will be even more entertaining... Somehow, I don't think Kavanaugh is in as much danger as it may appear and I also don't believe it will have much of an impact on the upcoming elections. First, The Colline Gate is an outlier because over half of all Americans can't name a single Supreme Court justice.I bet if you went to Times Square on a Saturday evening and asked passer-byes, "Who is Brent Kavanaugh?" most of them would say, "Who the hell cares?" Few campaigns turn on who gets to sit on the Supreme Court. They just don't. Additionally, the insistence by Dr. Ford and her lawyer there must be an FBI investigation into her allegations before she will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee looks like a case of trying to impose conditions before she will speak. That's not going to fly with Chuck Grassley and if they want to have their little one-day inquiry with only one person in the hot seat, that's exactly what they will do and Ford will go unheard. Kavanaugh may have to be dragged over the finish line, by Grassley and McConnell will get him there. It would take a mighty big shoe to drop to stop the machinery behind this confirmation from grinding on to its predetermined conclusion. It was a game try by Feinstein, Harris and Booker, but it's a numbers game and the numbers were never in the Democrats favor. If they were depending on Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to ride to their rescue, they were doomed to be disappointed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 16:16:32 GMT -5
Another thing that IMO weighs in favor of Professor Ford's truthfulness -- she wants the FBI to investigate both her and Kavanaugh with regard to this investigation. Liars tend not to want that.
I also think it's shameful that the GOP is trying to force her to do a hearing Monday or never. Kavanaugh has a team prepping him. She deserves a chance to prep herself before strolling into the Senate to be grilled about what (assuming it's true) was a traumatic experience. Again I ask -- what is the damn rush? Scalia's seat was empty for well over a year. This one has been empty, what, a month and a half?
And here is something that, with all due respect to George Conway, I don't think has weight one way or another:
Here's the thing: Patrick Smythe was not a witness of the attack. He was just another guy Ford alleges was at the party. So to him, this was just another one of many, many parties that would have happened during high school (clearly, this was a hard-partying set of kids).
I went to a million parties my junior and senior year in high school. They mostly all blend together, with a couple of exceptions where something really notable happened. There is no WAY I remember all of them, nor where they were, nor who did and did not attend them.
E.g., I vividly recall a party where a bunch of obnoxious guys decided to trench a girl's lawn and uproot a small tree. The girl's parents were out of town and her party got way out of control -- word of mouth spread it to basically every teen in the vicinity. I can't remember whose house it was (it was a girl, not in my class, and she wasn't one of my set), nor the month or day of the party. A neighbor called the cops. My boyfriend and I were driving away when they pulled up (probably luckily for us). I could draw you a rough map of the ground floor of her house, or at least where the kitchen, bathroom and living room were, but I'll be damned if I remember her name or address. My boyfriend and I were there, and his friend Jim and Jim's girlfriend de jour, but which of my other friends were there or not, I could not say for certain.
And the parties where nothing out of the way happened? Pfft. I couldn't tell you who was at which one when. Come on. No one could, not decades later. All the time, when chatting with old friends, one of us remembers something that the other doesn't recall at all. That's normal if there wasn't any particular reason to make something particularly memorable to you.
So if this Smythe guy didn't witness the attack -- and according to Professor Ford, he didn't -- why WOULD he remember this party? It would just be another party. I actually find it more suspicious that he apparently is comfortable catagorically denying that he was ever at a small party that included Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge -- particularly among a group that partied as hard as this group of boys apparently did.
Ford DOES have a reason to remember who the boys at the party were (though it would also not be remarkable if she didn't remember them all or didn't know their names). If she's lying, she's taking a huge risk naming specific people. I don't think she's lying.
The only thing Smythe can say, I think, is "I did not witness such an attack" -- and since no one said he did, it's a shrug.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 19, 2018 16:18:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 16:22:59 GMT -5
Two things we can say for sure:
(1) This Mark Judge guy is a total douche, and
(2) Thirty-five years ago, Kavanaugh did not have the best taste in friends.
I saw that article earlier and meant to post it. What. A. Douchebag.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 17:05:20 GMT -5
You know how sometimes the fact of a cover-up is a bigger problem than whatever was covered up? This is one of those times:
Somehow that line seems way worse to me because of the fact Kavanaugh left it out of the transcript he submitted.
Hey GOP -- Come on, seriously, you've got to have a well-qualified candidate with fewer issues than these.
Btw, I am inclined to agree with Rob's take on this -- that the GOP is feeling less confident about this candidate than the face they're putting forward. It would not surprise me if his nomination were withdrawn or he were pressured to withdraw.
That said, if that doesn't happen, and they plow through confirming him, I think it's likely to help Democrats in the midterms. While I agree with NT that many people are generally oblivious to the Supreme Court (and of course a certain percentage of Republicans with still be cheering if Kavanaugh is confirmed), this has gotten a LOT of press and there are a fair number of people whose takeaway is "the GOP doesn't give a shit if Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist as long as he's conservative," and won't like it. All too easy to tie this to Roy Moore, Trump himself, etc., and make that a campaign message: the GOP doesn't give a shit about women. And I think there are certain important groups of voters -- young voters, swing voters, women independents and moderate Republican voters, that it might push over the fence or to the polls. An awful lot of very close races out there...
The people who will be delighted about Kavanaugh at this point and will cheer at these allegations being shoved aside are already sold on the GOP. They aren't winnable voters. The ones who feel some discomfort, on the other hand, are likely winnable.
IMO, the GOP would do better for themselves to at least give these charges a fair hearing and to put more time into the process. Monday or never, and hey, who cares if Mark Judge is willing to testify -- I really, really think that's awful.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2018 10:48:42 GMT -5
Here are my thoughts.
When this was an anonymous letter, there was little reason to give it much credence. Anyone can write it.
Now that Ford has come forward, it's a different story all together. And we've been seeing partisan politics at their worst.
On the one hand, Kavanaugh (Who can still be charged) has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Many have announced their belief that he was guilty right away. He's now put into a position to have to disprove these charges, which considering that they stem from something 35 years ago, and if I understand the accuser can't remember specifics, it might be impossible to do so.
Could she be making it up? Or mis-remembering? Could it be Judge who was the culprit?
Probably a whole bunch of other possibilities.
Having said that:
Does it make sense for her to come forward now? Yes. She may have taken years to come to terms with it, understood there was little she could legally do to a rising judge, but then seeing him ascend to to the top court felt duty bound to come forward.
The claim is, in an of itself credible. I'd even go so far as to say very credible.
Ford, in today's climate, had to know that coming forward would mean exposing herself and her family to a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and death threats. As I understand, she's in hiding. This is horrific, but not unforeseeable and unacceptable. If tomorrow proof surfaced that this was 100% fiction, it would still remain unacceptable and shameful behavior.
The letter from 65 female classmates are character witnesses, no more no less. It's very possible Kavanaugh knows how to behave with woman, but as a teen, while drunk, he crossed a very serious line.
I'm trouble by the rush to judgement, the call to believe her without independent evidence. I'm even more troubled by some who have said 'so what' that he was 17, are we to be held accountable for everything we did. This is serious behavior. Not immature words spoken while drunk. It's criminal. While I can applaud the idea that we should be able to forgive transgressions from youth once one pays their dues, Kavanaugh hasn't. I'd rather see that mercy applied to people who were tried as adults, especially in non violent crimes, at younger ages, and are still in prison.
Both sides seem to be willing to forgo fairness to the other side since it doesn't suit them.
If Kavanaugh withdraws, does that mean that any future nomination can be challenged based on a decades old claim that can't either be proven, or disproven. Who bears the burden of proof here?
It's a shit show, and part of the blame, IMHO, is how this came out. Fienstien should have brought that letter forward, allowed it to be parsed in private. Kavanaugh could have withdrawn without anyone knowing and Ford wouldn't have had to come forward. If he withdraws now, it'll be viewed as an admission of guilt.
Finally, do I think it's true? I don't have any reason not to, and most likely it is, but I hesitate to actually say it is true.
A false allegation is a serious matter. I'm no more willing to conclude that Ford is guilty of that, than I am that Kavanaugh is guilty of attempted rape.
So my official opinion is that I don't know.
Oh, and we're fucked no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 11:08:00 GMT -5
On the one hand, Kavanaugh (Who can still be charged) has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.[/q] This is a thing that annoys me, sorry - the "presumption of innocence" specifically applies to criminal charges. You are not entitled to a presumption of innocence in private, or in the court of public opinion. There, people are allowed to form judgments based on their experiences, what they think, and yes, including their biases. Yes, that can be unfair. And ideally, people should still exercise reasonable judgment, a healthy amount of skepticism (and no more), and not jump to conclusions, let alone action. But in general, if someone tells a credible story of being raped, I am predisposed to assume she is probably telling the truth without good reason to think otherwise. I would of course defend the accused's right to a presumption of innocence if he goes to trial, but that doesn't mean his accuser has to prove to you or me or anyone else "beyond a reasonable doubt" for us to take her seriously. This has been raised a lot, lately, mostly by Republicans, this game theoretical POV that suggests that in the future, everyone will prep a rape accuser to claim a nominee they don't like is a rapist. I think that's pretty unlikely. I think that yes, any nominee who has someone come forward and accuse him or her of serious misconduct years and years ago is going to have to address those claims, and if they can't satisfy Congress that it's a fabrication, they don't get confirmed. Yes, I expect Supreme Court nominees to be squeaky clean going back all the way to their teenage years. If you were not squeaky clean, you have many avenues to live a productive and rewarding life, just not as a Supreme Court Justice.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2018 11:20:25 GMT -5
So let's say he testifies under oath. His testimony is solid, denies the charge, but because there's no specific date or time, can't really give an alibi. Ford doesn't testify. He can't disprove it. He can only tell you that he's 100% innocent. Then what?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 11:34:12 GMT -5
If he flat-out says she's lying and she refuses to testify, then Congress, IMO, should subpoena her.
|
|