Supreme Court Nominee #2

[Deleted member 39678]

sff

Obviously not. And, to clarify, I haven’t.

That means that the young men at the party may not have been part of a "chauvinistic boys club" but instead respectable citizens. JMO

What does "sff" mean?

 

[mickey2942]

Or have a problem remembering who was at the party or maybe who the rapist really was.

Or where the party was, the date, who you went to the party with...everything is in a very vague state, until the details of the alleged assault, which is sharp enough to detail, moment by moment. The same vagueness applies to after the incident, how she got home, who she was with...if we are determining that a man is unsuitable for a Supreme Court appointment, I want more than vague ambiguities, except for the incident. The level of reasonable doubt is wide open for interpretation here. There are no corroborating witnesses, she didn't tell a girlfriend?

I have other issues with her testimony, this is not attacking a "victim", just critical analysis of her situation.

The issue of flying is significant, Dr. Ford has flown on airplanes before, why in this case could she not fly?

Why did she have a polygraph? To what purpose? I don't even see the relevance here. A polygraph test is completely unreliable, I can cite numerous qualified studies on the absolute irrelevance of a polygraph.

If we can have point by point analysis of Kavanaugh, we should also be able to discuss his victim's testimony. Or rather, his accuser.

Stick to the absolute facts.

What she has stated.
What he has stated.

I actually find issues with both of their testimonials.

I do not believe that Kavanaugh was a choir boy in high school or college. I believe that he probably did drink alcohol in excess. But, that being said, it is far different from accusing someone of assault.

 

[Spellbound]

I know nothing about Vox as a site to quote, but they have an interesting chart

Ford made an effort to answer every question;
Kavanaugh dodged questions, often repeated the same non-answer over and over. Other times, he insisted on answering a question with “context” — often with a long story about his childhood — but never actually answered the question.

The chart is from going through every time each was asked a question (from transcript of hearing)
It noted every instance a question was answered or "did not know", and when they refused to answer or the answer did not reflect the question asked.
The chart looks like this, but if you go to the site you can interact by clicking the lines and the question/response appears

 

[jjenny]

From what I saw of the hearing, he wasn't actually answering a lot of questions. Very evasive.

 

[jjenny]

Or have a problem remembering who was at the party or maybe who the rapist really was.

Anything is possible. That's the problem I have with accusations coming so much later. There is no way to verify one way or the other.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

That means that the young men at the party may not have been part of a "chauvinistic boys club" but instead respectable citizens. JMO

What does "sff" mean?

“snipped for focus”

Respectfully, please don’t tell me what my words do or don’t mean or take them out of context.

I wrote clear and fully formed declarative sentences, not questions. They also are my opinion.

You’re welcome to disagree, obviously, which is fine. That’s your opinion. Please don’t twist mine to serve yours.

 

[mickey2942]

From what I saw of the hearing, he wasn't actually answering a lot of questions. Very evasive.

Or very frustrated. He was completely powerless in this situation. Anything he said, could be used against him to further the agenda. He had to be noncommittal, because saying anything concrete would have been held against him.

It is not incumbent on the accused to help provide information to support the accusation. The victim needs to provide evidence and proof of the event.

 

[jjenny]

Or very frustrated. He was completely powerless in this situation. Anything he said, could be used against him to further the agenda. He had to be noncommittal, because saying anything concrete would have been held against him.

It is not incumbent on the accused to help provide information to support the accusation. The victim needs to provide evidence and proof of the event.

Well, he didn't seem to have issues with detailed questioning of other men (namely Clinton) when it came to sexual behavior. Just look at kind of questions he wanted Clinton to be asked about actual consensual behavior. What would be the point of knowing all these details?

"He was “strongly opposed to giving the president any ‘break’ in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship”, he wrote, unless Clinton “resigns” or “confesses perjury”."
Brett Kavanaugh had graphic questions for Bill Clinton about Lewinsky affair

 

[Jax49]

The Unbearable Dishonesty of Brett Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh strained credulity when he argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the “Devil’s Triangle” — a phrase that appeared on his high school yearbook page — referred to a drinking game, a definition which, before Thursday, you’d have a hard time finding anywhere. (It actually refers to a sex act involving two men and a woman). He also unabashedly claimed that the term “boof” is a reference to “flatulence,” rather than other butt stuff, and that “ralph,” which means to vomit —implicitly from the overconsumption of alcohol — was a reference to Kavanaugh’s weak stomach.

In fact, Kavanaugh dissembled about whether he ever drank to excess at all — an incredible claim given the contents of his yearbook; his friend Mark Judge’s damning memoir, which is titled “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk;” and the sheer number of times Kavanaugh mentioned “beer” during Thursday’s hearing. Although he admitted in his opening statement that “sometimes I had too many beers,” when pressed on how much was too much, he was evasive again: “I don’t know. You know, we — whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.”

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Or where the party was, the date, who you went to the party with...everything is in a very vague state, until the details of the alleged assault, which is sharp enough to detail, moment by moment. The same vagueness applies to after the incident, how she got home, who she was with...if we are determining that a man is unsuitable for a Supreme Court appointment, I want more than vague ambiguities, except for the incident.

bbm

Which is unfortunate and sad, because it’s been repeatedly shown that’s just not how traumatic memory works.

What bolsters the testimony is the evidence from peers, other women, etc. That’s how it works. Weird how that’s minimized and ignored. MOO

 

[CARIIS]

lol. IMO, Kav’s already admitted to being a stumbling, puking drunk. Depending on which politician you believe, the FBI won’t look into his drinking history, anyway.

Graham suggests no need for FBI to look into Kavanaugh's drinking past

clinically we have to look at the adament denials -- the inability to admit to a blackout or 6

that is clinically meaningful

in addition (but significant) is the classic it is only only only only only only beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer beer

that is old school refrain based in the notion that a true alcoholic is only walking around hugging a bottle of Rum!

a young person today would not engage in that -- that is generationial belief systems as it relates to the illness we call alcoholism

Clinically the need to toss it back (to her and the other guy - the what do you drink stuff ) is defensive as it specifically relates to an alcoholic being confronted with his issues as it relates to being an alcoholic

again clinically (sorry cant help it ha!) the adamant declaration that I still like and drink beer is classic

the bottom line with new addiction theory is basically has engaging in any addictive behavior resulted in negative consequences

indeed - waking up the last 10 days and seeing headlines and new reports about what an obnoxious drunk you were (are?)
is certainly a negative consequence!

I dont know about soon - but I do anticipate family members using this as a entryway to get him into treatment (intervention)


we certainly have no doubt that he continues to drink to this day - he says so. So his family and close friends have had to deal with this for some time i would think

pure speculation of course

again on the clinical side this is rough for him

the rage and word choice the other day is actually pretty typical for a man his age in terms of coming to terms with his situation.

And hey if he was not being appointed to our SC I would feel sorry for him

in his confirmation hearing he was obnoxious (not the other day) throughout the whole thing

again I watched every minute of it

before all this what was surprising to me -- he really is not bright -- he might have read a lot -- but in terms of articulation patterns he was actually kinda schelpy not impressive

at times appearing actually dim witted and slow -- like almost like simpleton if that makes sense ??

he certainly does not have a presence - Obama , Bill ,have a presence a wild intelligence that is born not obtained. i don't know his name but that tall guy from texas he is bright as heck !)

I was really surprised at how "nothing " he was I was expecting a bright guy

 

[Hope4More]

Gonna do a hypothetical. Let's say that none of this is about the SC or politics. Let's see it from the point of view of the regular legal process.

A man is accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old girl, years ago, and the crime can still be prosecuted. An attorney general decides to prosecute, the case is brought to court. You are a juror.

The prosecutors did a thorough investigation, and believe they have a strong enough circumstantial case. Here is there case:

1. The victim is credible.
2. The victim names 5 others who were at the event. One is the accused, one is a black out drunk. The other 3 testify that they have no memory of the party itself, but cannot say they know there was no such party, because that kind of get together happened so routinely, and there was nothing to make that one stand out, for them.
3. The victim's GF says she believes the victim, perhaps she testified she does because boys acting wild towards girls when drunk at these parties wasn't unusual, and because she knows her friend is honest and has no reason to lie.

She doesn't know K, but if she attended just one party where he was there, and most of the time he was out of the room she was in, and if she was too involved in talking to others then
she wouldn't have noticed him anyway.

4. Because Judge blacked out & has no memory of the night, there are no eye witnesses other than the victim, even if other witnesses could be brought forward who remember such a party being held.

5. There are many witnesses who can testify that K drank to excess, routinely, and that he didn't always remember the whole night afterwards.

6. Likewise, there are witnesses who say that K, when he had too much to drink, often became aggressive, that he was a "sloppy" drunk, a "mean" drunk, and that this was true through college.

7. Likewise, several witnesses testify that K had become lewd towards women when drunk, and had a history in HS and in college of disparaging certain kinds of girls.

8. K, when interrogated by police, lied about his drinking, about how he treated girls in general, and about specific episodes of lewdness/aggression towards girls/women.

That is the case. Would you find K guilty of sexual assault? Or would you find too much reasonable doubt to convict?

 

[simba16]

Well, he didn't seem to have issues with detailed questioning of other men (namely Clinton) when it came to sexual behavior. Just look at kind of questions he wanted Clinton to be asked about actual consensual behavior. What would be the point of knowing all these details?

"He was “strongly opposed to giving the president any ‘break’ in the questioning regarding the details of the Lewinsky relationship”, he wrote, unless Clinton “resigns” or “confesses perjury”."
Brett Kavanaugh had graphic questions for Bill Clinton about Lewinsky affair

Exactly and BK has committed perjury. Why don't Republicans have a problem with that when 10 years ago with Lindsey Graham leading the charge in the House they impeached Bill Clinton for the same? I was disgusted by Bill Clinton. The Democratic female senators drove All Franken out of the Senate over a lot less.

 

[jjenny]

bbm

Which is unfortunate and sad, because it’s been repeatedly shown that’s just not how traumatic memory works.

What bolsters the testimony is the evidence from peers, other women, etc. That’s how it works. Weird how that’s minimized and ignored. MOO

In this case unfortunately all other supposed witnesses claim to not recall anything about the incident.

 

[jjenny]

...

That is the case. Would you find K guilty of sexual assault? Or would you find too much reasonable doubt to convict?

If I were the juror, I could never convict. Not that I like K, believe K, or want him confirmed to the Supreme Court. But I could never vote to convict because there is way too much reasonable doubt for me. The alleged victim could be 100 % sincere but I have no way to evaluate how accurate her memory is all these years later. A witness can be 100 % sure and 100 % wrong.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I was watching live when that was said. I thought there was a lot of questionable things said in that hearing and I thought that was one of them. They have gaslighting down to a science. Just look at the back and forth with DJT and the restrictions (or not) on the FBI investigation today. Someone asked earlier if we aren't exhaused. Yes I am tired of being gaslighted. I feel like I am in an abusive relationship.

I question this as well. The committee's offers (come to CA, private hearings, etc.) were all over the news, and it surprises me that, even if her attorneys did not bring these offers to her, no one in her family, none of her friends, neither she nor anyone she's close to, none of them saw any of these news reports? I am skeptical that she was unaware of these well-publicized offers.

 

[CARIIS]

bbm

Which is unfortunate and sad, because it’s been repeatedly shown that’s just not how traumatic memory works.

What bolsters the testimony is the evidence from peers, other women, etc. That’s how it works. Weird how that’s minimized and ignored. MOO

That kinda memory stuff is way past proven.

Car accident one: Memory : Drizzling - saw coming - bang - remember my new speakers filling up with water blood but nothing else

Car one two!

Had cigg -- knew like two seconds (remember the thought oh shi# it is gonna go out of control - spinning -- seeing through the windshield a bunch of trees -- thinking ug oh a tree is gonna thro my heart -- everything stopping looking down -- tons of glass -- looking for blood none

that is it
there was no sequence at all it was like (in both ) pictures not video

as it was breaking I had to remember I am a therapist and lots don't know about recall during trauma but i have been amazed at how it seems like this is new news or something ??

It is fact -- it is how the brain fires

 

[CARIIS]

I question this as well. The committee's offers (come to CA, private hearings, etc.) were all over the news, and it surprises me that, even if her attorneys did not bring these offers to her, no one in her family, none of her friends, neither she nor anyone she's close to, none of them saw any of these news reports? I am skeptical that she was unaware of these well-publicized offers.

I dont really think she was like watching news etc

her life spun out

her kids were in danger

she had to flee like hurricane people need to

calls lawyers money etc etc

and it all came on her so quick

and we have to remember during all of this her memories are being triggered -- intensely -- it is tough stuff for victims

 

[MyBelle]

In this case unfortunately all other supposed witnesses claim to not recall anything about the incident.

I'm not sure why some are having such difficulty understanding this critical point.

 

[simba16]

Or very frustrated. He was completely powerless in this situation. Anything he said, could be used against him to further the agenda. He had to be noncommittal, because saying anything concrete would have been held against him.

It is not incumbent on the accused to help provide information to support the accusation. The victim needs to provide evidence and proof of the event.

He was evasive and perhaps lying before the Dr Ford allegations came out. In fact he may have perjured himself years earlier when he was confirmed for first position. How do you excuse his lying?