https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

Maybe smoke does not always indicate fire. Sometimes it may just indicate people blowing smoke.

Based on Trump's rallies last night, the only person whose life is now ruined is Ford (they'll keep chanting lock her up but hopefully it won't escalate beyond that). The Senate committee's report makes sure of that ('you were quite the promiscuous one, weren't you? We're outraged at these unfounded reports destroying the Judge's reputation, but we've found two men who are pretty sure they got frisky with you back in that time frame').

This report shows me more than ever that when the Republicans replace their retiring committee members (Hatch, Flake, not sure if there are others), they need to make sure they don't replace them with another old, white Senator.

I also read the story on this to conclude that Ford and Ramirez are credible but just have the wrong folks. The four folks Grassley refers to the DoJ are political operatives with no basis at all to their claims - I do tend to agree with them on that latter point.

BTW I'll miss Hatch. This one isn't from the Kavanaugh hearings but it's a classic.

I was always of the opinion that Ford was sincere but mistaken in her accusations. The real wrongdoers here are the people who outed her against her will and those who used her for political purposes. Every single one of those people are Democrats.

I think besides Ford, we ca count Kavanaugh, his wife, his daughters, and all the people called upon to be witnesses one way or the other as people whose lives are damaged.

(11-06-2018 07:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The four folks Grassley refers to the DoJ are political operatives with no basis at all to their claims - I do tend to agree with them on that latter point.

But how can that be? They claimed to be VICTIMS! Don't you believe VICTIMS?

Hopefully there will be a real investigation at some point, but I'll just point out that the whole "mistaken identity" thing is unlikely statistically. My wife does a lot of volunteer work for SAFE Place. It's not unusual for people to forget details like the ones Ford forgot. It is highly unusual for the victim to misidentify the assailant, especially when they are known to each other.

In other words, this "report" just causes eye rolling from people who actually know about this stuff and work to help victims of sexual assault.

Sexual assault is a lot more common then most men realize. In the last year I've learned that at least two friends had been raped in the past, several other had been victims of other forms of sexual assault. It's been eye opening and depressing.

It wasn't mistaken identity. It was a made-up lie from the start.

People with certain psychological problems tend to remember things that did not actually happen. My sister is one.

I think Ford thinks she remembers correctly, and is wrong. Very hard to persuade these people that they are mistaken. Especially when they are mental health professionals, like my sister.

(11-07-2018 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Sexual assault is a lot more common then most men realize. In the last year I've learned that at least two friends had been raped in the past, several other had been victims of other forms of sexual assault. It's been eye opening and depressing.

The people who made false accusations against Kavanaugh certainly have not helped those victims.

(11-07-2018 10:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It wasn't mistaken identity. It was a made-up lie from the start.

The Republican end of the Judiciary Committee seems to think it's mistaken identity (for Ford and Ramirez at least). One point you can't deny - both ladies knew Kavanaugh. In Ramirez's case, she and Kavanaugh both were in the same wedding party several years after graduating from Yale, and according to someone else in the wedding party (who is a Republican), they basically had to be separated from each other during the whole wedding even though he was a groomsman and she was a bridesmaid. Now why they couldn't stand each other, I don't know. But you certainly have to admit they weren't lying about their connections in both high school and college to Kavanaugh.

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It wasn't mistaken identity. It was a made-up lie from the start.

The Republican end of the Judiciary Committee seems to think it's mistaken identity (for Ford and Ramirez at least). One point you can't deny - both ladies knew Kavanaugh. In Ramirez's case, she and Kavanaugh both were in the same wedding party several years after graduating from Yale, and according to someone else in the wedding party (who is a Republican), they basically had to be separated from each other during the whole wedding even though he was a groomsman and she was a bridesmaid. Now why they couldn't stand each other, I don't know. But you certainly have to admit they weren't lying about their connections in both high school and college to Kavanaugh.

If I said I was an All-American when I was at Rice, you'd have to admit I wasn't lying about the Rice part. So, not much of a point there, FBO. ;-) Also, Kavanaugh did not deny knowing them, so I don't think that part was in dispute.

Anyway, I will say that I don't think Ford or Ramirez (although I'm more skeptical about the latter) consciously decided, with malice aforethought, to falsely accuse Kavanaugh. Some people *absolutely* did in this whole affair (Swetnick/Avenatti, the Kentucky wacko, etc.) but yeah, I think someone pushed Ford onto a bed 35+ years ago and someone exposed himself to Ramirez 30+ years ago at a Yale knockoff of NOD. But I think the implication that only Republicans (although I admit to being one) could conclude "mistaken identity" is a bit tendentious.

There was a full initial investigation, then an extra FBI investigation, shadowed by a Congressional investigation. I assume the Democrats had plenty of people pounding the pavement. There were 6 FBI background checks. And every major media outlet in the country threw every resource they had at trying to confirm what would have been the bombshell story of the century, and plenty of them were additionally motivated by liberal ideology, avowedly or sub rosa. At the end of the day, not only could none of the people named by the accusers (including lifelong friends!) verify the accounts or *any* salient detail thereof, but we now have plausible alternative perpetrators for each incident.

There is *nothing* partisan or biased about concluding mistaken identity here. It's the only evidence-based conclusion available.

(11-07-2018 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Hopefully there will be a real investigation at some point, but I'll just point out that the whole "mistaken identity" thing is unlikely statistically. My wife does a lot of volunteer work for SAFE Place. It's not unusual for people to forget details like the ones Ford forgot. It is highly unusual for the victim to misidentify the assailant, especially when they are known to each other.

In other words, this "report" just causes eye rolling from people who actually know about this stuff and work to help victims of sexual assault.

Sexual assault is a lot more common then most men realize. In the last year I've learned that at least two friends had been raped in the past, several other had been victims of other forms of sexual assault. It's been eye opening and depressing.

Let me add a bit on your mistaken identity point. The volunteer work your wife does at SafePlace is certainly admirable, but is it really relevant in this discussion? You're basically making an appeal to authority argument by saying that those who work with sexual assault victims "just know about this stuff," and since they say mistaken identity hardly ever happens, it is not a legitimate explanation here.

But unless I'm off base, the vast majority of cases encountered at shelters are instances where the assault happened very recently AND the assailant is intimately known to the victim: abusive partner, molestation by a family or household member, etc. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy to begin with but even if I put that aside, why should I consider an expert on domestic violence an expert on anything having to do with whether someone could be mistaken about identity in something that happened 35 years ago AND where the alleged perpetrator and victim were -- by their own accounts -- hardly acquaintances, much less intimates?

Is it not also a bit Kafkaesque to claim that getting secondary facts wrong in a sexual assault report is just as corroborating as getting them right?

Anyhoo, at the end of the day, Ford and Ramirez did have their allegations taken seriously and treated credibly. Frankly, heaven and earth were moved to investigate their allegations. Continuing to believe them on the issue of identity is, at this point, simply a choice, a matter of faith (or ideology), not a conclusion compelled by knowledge, expert or otherwise.

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It wasn't mistaken identity. It was a made-up lie from the start.

The Republican end of the Judiciary Committee seems to think it's mistaken identity (for Ford and Ramirez at least). One point you can't deny - both ladies knew Kavanaugh. In Ramirez's case, she and Kavanaugh both were in the same wedding party several years after graduating from Yale, and according to someone else in the wedding party (who is a Republican), they basically had to be separated from each other during the whole wedding even though he was a groomsman and she was a bridesmaid. Now why they couldn't stand each other, I don't know. But you certainly have to admit they weren't lying about their connections in both high school and college to Kavanaugh.

They can think what they choose to think. I know what I think, based upon the information available to me. I don't think they can afford to say publicly that she was an SJW thinking that she could get her moment of fame by bringing down Kavanaugh. But based on everything I've seen, that seems to be the most logical explanation.

Apparently the chair-to-be of the House Judiciary committee was overhead on a commuter train discussing with colleagues on the phone the active plans to head all-in to impeach Kavanaugh.

I guess the Democrats Never Took the Lesson on cellphone calls in public spaces

Hillary Clinton server level concern about being overheard.

Rule #1 as a first week attorney: Never discuss sensitive subjects on a cell phone in a public setting.

I guess the Democrat's version of 'ideas' is to simply pound the 'Orange man bad' drum. It will be interesting to see them play the dual role of a majority party in a chamber of commerce and 'the Resistance' ™ at the same time.

I believe many people convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA testing.

(11-07-2018 10:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 10:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It wasn't mistaken identity. It was a made-up lie from the start.

The Republican end of the Judiciary Committee seems to think it's mistaken identity (for Ford and Ramirez at least). One point you can't deny - both ladies knew Kavanaugh. In Ramirez's case, she and Kavanaugh both were in the same wedding party several years after graduating from Yale, and according to someone else in the wedding party (who is a Republican), they basically had to be separated from each other during the whole wedding even though he was a groomsman and she was a bridesmaid. Now why they couldn't stand each other, I don't know. But you certainly have to admit they weren't lying about their connections in both high school and college to Kavanaugh.

They can think what they choose to think. I know what I think, based upon the information available to me. I don't think they can afford to say publicly that she was an SJW thinking that she could get her moment of fame by bringing down Kavanaugh. But based on everything I've seen, that seems to be the most logical explanation.

Given that Ford reached out to her reps well before Kavanaugh became the final nominee makes that less likely to be true. That doesn’t mean that what she says is true, but it’s a good bit of evidence that she wasn’t explicitly seeking fame, since it was not clear he would even be the nominee at the time when she first brought the allegations up.

Responding en mass: My main point was to point out that the “mistaken identity” theory is quite unlikely in general - not expecting us to agree on what actually happened with Ford/Ramirez/Kavanaugh, though maybe we could agree that NONE of us know for certain.

The Republican defenses of Kavanaugh ended up being almost like caricature of the reasons so few women report assaults and why so few perpetrators are convicted even among those who are reported. That was where I brought in my wife’s volunteer work – her organization and others like it have been undermined by this whole fiasco. Of course if Ford and Ramirez intentionally made false claims as George suggested, then they would be culpable as well.

I think the single most shocking thing I saw in all of this was the Republican Lt. Governor of SC who was on CNN(?) as a Kavanaugh surrogate and when asked what he would tell his daughter if she said she was raped he said he’d ask her if “she was sure that’s actually what happened.” His. Own. Daughter.

But again, even if you think Ford was flat out lying, people should really educate themselves as to how common sexual assault is. It's really pretty shocking. You almost certainly know someone who has been raped, whether you know it or not.

(11-08-2018 10:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Responding en mass: My main point was to point out that the “mistaken identity” theory is quite unlikely in general - not expecting us to agree on what actually happened with Ford/Ramirez/Kavanaugh, though maybe we could agree that NONE of us know for certain.

The Republican defenses of Kavanaugh ended up being almost like caricature of the reasons so few women report assaults and why so few perpetrators are convicted even among those who are reported. That was where I brought in my wife’s volunteer work – her organization and others like it have been undermined by this whole fiasco. Of course if Ford and Ramirez intentionally made false claims as George suggested, then they would be culpable as well.

I think the single most shocking thing I saw in all of this was the Republican Lt. Governor of SC who was on CNN(?) as a Kavanaugh surrogate and when asked what he would tell his daughter if she said she was raped he said he’d ask her if “she was sure that’s actually what happened.” His. Own. Daughter.

But again, even if you think Ford was flat out lying, people should really educate themselves as to how common sexual assault is. It's really pretty shocking. You almost certainly know someone who has been raped, whether you know it or not.

People can be quite convinced that what they so clearly remember is actually what really happened. The farther back it goes, the less likely that is true. Attending your 55th reunion and swapping stories from 55 years ago, and you will soon see that not everybody remembers the same thing the same way. I had to ask a friend if he was one of the passengers in my car car during my first wreck. I wasn't sure any more.

Eyewitness testimony, even that of victims, is notoriously unreliable. Many people convicted on such testimony have later been found to be innocent. I think 30 year old memories are more suspect than 30 day or 30 minute old memories.

people with certain mental health problems are absolutely, 100% convinced of the reality of their delusions, to the point they will go to the police and swear out warrants. they absolutely could pass a lie detector test, because they are NOT lying. They absolutely, in their minds, believe George Clooney is hiding in their closet, because they have SEEN him, and they REMEMBER it. It's a fact, to them, and if we are to believe everything a possible victim says, we meed to arrest George Clooney NOW, even if he is on a different continent. We have a sworn statement. At some point common sense has to take over.

Ms. Ford's testimony had a lot of omissions and inconsistencies. I could not convict anybody on that basis, even if it helped the political mission of my party and the accused was of the opposite party. Could you convict on the basis of what was presented?

also persuasive to me was the absolute lack of credible allegations recently. Maybe they also tell you at that center that offenders will offend again unless stopped.

But now we can go through all this again. I am sure Ms. Ford will enjoy it even less the second time, but who cares? Not the Democrats. And if the House succeeds in passing an impeachment, the Senate will surely shoot it down. Takes 67 votes in the Senate.

(11-08-2018 10:38 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Responding en mass: My main point was to point out that the “mistaken identity” theory is quite unlikely in general - not expecting us to agree on what actually happened with Ford/Ramirez/Kavanaugh, though maybe we could agree that NONE of us know for certain.
The Republican defenses of Kavanaugh ended up being almost like caricature of the reasons so few women report assaults and why so few perpetrators are convicted even among those who are reported. That was where I brought in my wife’s volunteer work – her organization and others like it have been undermined by this whole fiasco. Of course if Ford and Ramirez intentionally made false claims as George suggested, then they would be culpable as well.
I think the single most shocking thing I saw in all of this was the Republican Lt. Governor of SC who was on CNN(?) as a Kavanaugh surrogate and when asked what he would tell his daughter if she said she was raped he said he’d ask her if “she was sure that’s actually what happened.” His. Own. Daughter.
But again, even if you think Ford was flat out lying, people should really educate themselves as to how common sexual assault is. It's really pretty shocking. You almost certainly know someone who has been raped, whether you know it or not.

I know several women who were sexually assaulted. I’ve spoken with some of them about this. They all told me that they did not believe Ford. She just did not come across to them as genuine.

I’m not quite following your logic in the last paragraph. You seem to be saying that sexual assault is common, therefore we must believe Ford. If that is a mischaracterization of your statement, then perhaps you can clarify.

(11-08-2018 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know several women who were sexually assaulted. I’ve spoken with some of them about this. They all told me that they did not believe Ford. She just did not come across to them as genuine.

Anecdotally, I had the opposite experience.

(11-08-2018 04:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I’m not quite following your logic in the last paragraph. You seem to be saying that sexual assault is common, therefore we must believe Ford. If that is a mischaracterization of your statement, then perhaps you can clarify.

No, my point was, even if, for arguments sake, Ford completely made it up, sexual assault is still much more common than most of us realize(d) and waaaaaay under-reported and prosecuted.