|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2018 11:39:15 GMT -5
Okay. Let's say she does testify. She remembers he did this. She doesn't remember when it was, where it was. There is no way to verify it one way or the other.
He denies, but can't disprove it. Then what?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 11:53:09 GMT -5
In reality, under questioning from Congress, it's very unlikely that two people can tell diametrically opposite versions of a story and both appear equally credible. Congress will form opinions about who is more credible, undoubtedly informed largely by political biases, but someone is going to have more holes in their story than the other one.
But fine, let's say it really does seem so unknowable that deciding who's telling the truth is basically a coin flip.
In that case, for this specific situation, my opinion is that a Supreme Court Justice should not have this sort of uncertainty hanging over him, and they should find a candidate who won't serve their entire lifetime appointment under a shroud of "Maybe we put a rapist on the bench."
Is that unfair to Kavanaugh, if he's innocent? Yeah. Tough cookies, Supreme Court nominees have been scuttled for less. If you're trying to get what is literally one of the most selective and competitive jobs in existence (more so than the Presidency!), I don't think it's unreasonable to say you need to be unquestionably, unimpeachably, squeaky clean.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2018 12:05:32 GMT -5
I don't disagree, but this is why I say that it could have been handled better. If Fienstien had had a closed door meeting, they could have evaluated it then. He can't disprove. If it goes public, he'll always have this over his head. He withdraws.
The problem is, he can say he didn't do this, but if she can't say it happened on such and such a date, he can't really disprove it.
He wouldn't be my pick for the SC, but that's not the relevant part. My feeling is this sucks because, yes, baring some new info, I think it's more than likely true at least to some extent, but not clearly true. Nothing she says rings a bell that says, 'this makes no sense.'. But it could very well be untrue.
And it's not like he's going to not get confirmed and everyone will shrug and say, oh well, he just lost that job, but we shoudln't assume this is true.
It's a shit show. I don't think this is fair to either of them.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 12:43:48 GMT -5
I very much doubt Kavanaugh will wind up unemployed and disgraced because of this. It's not like he's being disbarred.
The lesson here is, don't nominate people who haven't been thoroughly vetted. If the team trying to push him forward had cared enough, they could have found about this before it became an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2018 12:53:24 GMT -5
Would they have?
Part of this is that Ford wrote the letter because he was up for the Supreme Court. She's never gone public before. She's spoken about it to her husband and counselor, but even that was years later. Memory can be a tricky thing. Lost of people have sworn in court that the person arrested for their rape was sitting at the defense table, only to have DNA exonerate that person decades later. That's not to say those people were lying, but once you think it was someone, your mind can make you really believe it.
Look, what we're dealing with seems to be an unproven and possibly unprovable accusation that is both credible and quite possibly true. Nobody wins here.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 13:05:01 GMT -5
When they first nominated him, maybe not, but after she wrote her letter and before it blew up, yes, they could have quietly withdrawn him. I said much the same thing earlier and got jumped on for it. Have you been following the thread? So, like I said, if you have credible but unprovable accusations against a Supreme Court candidate, you withdraw that candidate. Sucks to be him, but you have to know going in that your confirmation is not a sure thing and that the least political breeze could sink you.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 20, 2018 13:42:46 GMT -5
Disagree that this is a consequence of not vetting. Ford wrote the letter in July, but asked Feinstein to not disclose it because she--Ford--didn't want to go public. Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI, it is true, but redacted all the names except for Kavanaugh's. That doesn't leave a lot of room and it was all well into the nomination process. There could be no quiet withdrawal at that point forward.
Prior to any of that, I don't see how the matter would have come up if Ford was unwilling to speak up. Vetting should not--imo--require that all past associations, all the way back to high school and I guess before, be contacted and grilled by the FBI. That's overkill and unfair to all involved. There has to be at least something to go on to justify such an approach, imo.
This isn't something that would have been avoided with better vetting at all, imo. Kavanaugh isn't someone unknown quantity. He's been notable since he joined Starr's team. And when he was nominated for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, it was a pretty rough ride. Took almost three years for him to get seated because of Dem opposition. These allegations never came up in all of that, so there's little reason to imagine Ford's story would have been uncovered with better vetting. It was only going to come out if she made the choice to let it come out. That's pretty clear, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 13:58:30 GMT -5
Okay, I retract the claim that they could have foreseen this beforehand. A few high school yearbook wisecracks about being a partier probably wouldn't have been sufficient to raise red flags. I thought I had read that the letter Feinstein had was available before the confirmation hearings began, but according to this timeline, apparently she only released it once they had started. (It actually seems unclear exactly when Feinstein shared the letter and with whom.) Of course a quality vetting team would still have probably come up with a better candidate in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Sept 20, 2018 17:31:28 GMT -5
I very much doubt Kavanaugh will wind up unemployed and disgraced because of this. Right. (Well, disgraced is at least a possibility.) But he's still got a pretty nice gig on the DC Circuit Court. And just for some perspective, Merrick Garland and Douglas Ginsburg are still serving on the exact same court. If Kavanaugh were to fall short of the SCOTUS, he surely wouldn't be the failed nominee w/ the most compelling sob story. Wouldn't be in the top two, either.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 20, 2018 17:39:49 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of Kavanaugh if for no other reason that I have to copy and paste his name every time I refer to him cause I can't remember how to spell it. If I ever become POTUS, I will only deal with people with easy to spell names. I'm not a fan of the 'believe all victims' stance on things, but some in the GOP has devolved to the point of inferring that it doesn't matter if it is true. He's agreed to testify on this under oath. I'd like her to do the same, even if it is behind closed doors, however, she's under no obligation to do so. But neither is the Senate under obligation to give weight to her claim. As to your question, no I didn't really follow the thread. There's tons of evidence to support this, which is why many states have statute of limitations on some crimes. (Not where this happened, I understand.) www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hidden-motives/201203/unreliable-memory Remember, it's not just people in jail due to crime victims remembering wrong. (In cases where crime occurring isn't in dispute.)You also have people falsely confess. Now a good portion of that could be due to bad policing, where they're forcing the confession, inability to defend so you cop a plea, or other factors. The fact is, people mis-remember things all the time. Am I saying that's what happened here? No, because I've got evidence to say it did. Nor do I have evidence to say it didn't. To me, anyone who has arrived at a conclusion to this sorry tale, either for guilt or innocence, either 'I believe all victims' to 'what does it matter what he did as a 17 year old' simply care about the truth. Of course, caring about truth is so not 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 20, 2018 18:17:28 GMT -5
As to your question, no I didn't really follow the thread. There's tons of evidence to support this, which is why many states have statute of limitations on some crimes. (Not where this happened, I understand.)
My point was that you are just repeating a point I already made, and now you're repeating it repeatedly and redundantly.
And once again, you are conflating standards of evidence for a criminal trial with standards of evidence for regarding someone suitable to sit on the Supreme Court.
I mean, I have reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty. I also have reasonable doubt that he's innocent. The former would be enough to find him not guilty in a criminal case. The latter is enough for me to think he shouldn't be put on the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Sept 20, 2018 21:05:17 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. Not to belabor the point buuuuut.... applying your original logic to Cass's experience, it seems as though you believe Cass, as the victim, is more likely to have unintentionally mentally/internally exaggerated or embellished the event than her bully is to have mentally/internally dismissed, minimized or deleted the event from memory. I maintain that this is ridiculous, and I have no idea why you parse it thusly, but I'll venture a guess: you're a person who holds himself accountable for his actions. You keep tabs on yourself and you know when you do something right and when you do something wrong (or less than perfectly) - and you don't dismiss the latter, ever. But here's the thing. There are people who are the EXACT opposite, I know from experience. And it's bizarre, being the sort of person who remembers every single thing you've ever done that was wrong, and coming into contact with someone who is the exact opposite - who excuses, minimizes, rationalizes, dismisses their own actions--to the point of not remembering shit they've done. But these people exist. In spades, I'll wager. And I'd also wager that Kavanaugh is such a person. Anyhoo, I agree with your stance on Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court, so I guess this subtopic is kind of a derail. But just to note, I wasn't jumping on you, I was arguing against one of your assertions. I expressed personal frustration with it. We do this here, right? It's allowed, yes? It's not personal. I do not think ill of you at all, I like you and I'm glad you're here, in case that helps. But when anyone says something I disagree with, it's probable I'm going to say something - like all of the rest of you do here, and virtually no one ever cries about being jumped on so.... Fight me.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 20, 2018 21:17:15 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. I know that at this point I'm also being redundant but I've always liked this quote:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 6:05:05 GMT -5
And as you know, I generally agree with that. But she didn't "see" something. She was attacked by someone she actually knew at a very small party.
Yes, memories get distorted. But this is quite different from a victim who only sees her attacker during the traumatic hour of her attack.
She knew him before the attack, and she no doubt had to continue encountering him and his friend afterward at school and social events. It is simply not the same as picking a random perp out of a mug shot that you only met during frigtened, traumatic moments.
I wouldn't trust myself to correctly identify the guy who snatched my friend's purse, and I chased down the block and grabbed by the hoodie before he shoved me down. But my boyfriend's friend in high school who got me alone in the basement at a party and tried to manhandle me? Oh, I know who he was.
ETA:
Ditto, by the way, for the grown men now stepping forward to say their parish priest or coach attacked them as boys.
It was a not a stranger. They know the person who attacked them. Not the same as some perv stranger grabbing them in the men's room.
ETA:
Might some details be lost/distorted? For sure. But the basic fact that someone you knew socially attacked you? No.
This woman is credible, IMO. And as this goes on, IMO she's looking more credible and he less so.
Btw, I'm traveling this next five days. I have no internet access other than my phone, so I may not be on here much. But if you don't know about the insane Whelan conspiracy theory, wherein he's implied that another specific guy in Kavanaugh's class whose yearbook photo looks a bit like Kavanaugh's committed the assault, get thee to the news and follow it. Ford promptly denied it, noting that she knew both of them and could not have confused them. Is despicable. And there is some reason to think Kavanaugh had some knowledge of this plan to throw doubt on the allegations. If he did, that alone should disqualify him.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 21, 2018 8:14:31 GMT -5
|
|