(10-04-2019 03:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Hambone10 - respectfully, we were denied the opportunity to have a better chance at "the truth" because the FBI's 2nd investigation was so narrow and because many witnesses were not allowed to testify after the allegations of sexual misconduct and drinking surfaced. Its unfair to attack the credibility of witnesses who were never even given the opportunity to produce testimony under oath. If they refused to testify under oath, that would be different. But many of them wanted to and were not allowed to.

Absolutely respectfully. I hope nothing comes across any other way.

I haven't attacked the credibility of any witnesses at all.

I don't believe a confirmation hearing is the proper forum for an FBI or criminal investigation... and these accusations were of crimes, even if a statute has run. If you want me to agree that rules of evidence and cross examination etc weren't followed, I think I've already agreed with that. The only difference between us seems to be the concern with which side isn't being given a fair shake. I would be more than happy for a full investigation to have taken place... but as I understand it, it couldn't because the statute had run... so this was more about the 'show' than people's rights.

Quote:In heresay terms, there are a number of indicia of reliability in play here. The fact that some witnesses only came forward after they felt like Kavanaugh lied under oath actually make them more credible as witnesses. They weren't out to get him by any means, but were bothered by what they believed were misrepresentations and/or lies under oath. As a reminder, here is the exchange that bothered me the most.

They weren't out to get them by any means etc. How do you know? It sure seems that he and his freshman roommate, the only one who (according to this exchange) said he had been so drunk as to not remember things and was belligerent when drunk had issues.

Klobuchar starts off by calling him an alcoholic... I'd note that she also ends it that way. In the middle, she talks about people who said x and y and z about him... and x and y aren't really a big deal... and z may be, but it's being disputed... and she is using the volume of (insignificant but proven) x and y to imply the weight of (significant but unproven) z.

Absolutely I get that he wasn't willing to answer the questions with a simple yes or no, because the way she was asking questions was going to imply that any acceptance of (as an example) similarities between her alcoholic father and him would imply agreement that he had a drinking problem. A fact NOT REMOTELY supported by any evidence whatsoever.

(10-04-2019 03:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-03-2019 09:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As you're a lawyer, I'm quite convinced that you wouldn't advise your client to 'remember' anything that he didn't actually remember pretty vividly., You'd tell him not to guess, not to generalize... to admit what you know you absolutely remember, and not what you don't.

Wouldn't you?

I tell every single witness that I am preparing for a deposition are trial that there are 2 rules I want them to remember and follow. The first rule is that you never talk about Fight Club. Oops, I mean the first rule is cardio. Oops again! The first rule is that you always tell the truth. So while I would never want them to admit something specific that they didn't remember, as you have suggested in a few posts, I would also never want them to deny a generality that was true (such as "did you ever drink to the point that you couldn't remember things?") and would have significant testimony or other evidence that would contradict the denial. So if someone involved in a car accident is asked whether they ever drove over the speed limit, I would prefer they tell the truth (usually yes) and then deny that they were doing so prior to the accident (if they remember). Of if a doctor is asked whether they know for a fact that they performed a certain step during a procedure, and the doctor cannot specifically remember that procedure (because he/she has performed the same procedure a hundred times since the alleged malpractice), they explain that they always do the procedure the same way and that their typical routine includes that step, while acknowledging that they can't remember that specific procedure.

I would have respected and believed Kavanaugh significantly more if he had answered: "Senator Klobuchar, as I testified earlier, there were certainly times in high school and college when I drank a lot and did some things that, looking back, were embarrassing and I wish I had not done. And there were a few times when I drank to the point that I couldn't remember everything that had happened the night before. And I will tell you, its pretty embarrassing for me to admit this in front of the entire world, even though I know lots of people have had similar experiences when they were young adults. But I can tell you unequivocally that no matter how much I drank, I would never, under any circumstances, engage in the kind of sexual misconduct that has been alleged by Dr. Blasey Ford or Mrs. Ramirez. I am not the kind of person who would have ever done something like that, and that is as true when I am completely sober as it was when I was drinking as a young man. And I know the follow-up question to my response is inevitably going to be - "If you admit that you couldn't remember everything you did on some occasions, how can you deny these allegations?" To which I can only respond that I know myself and I know I would never have acted in the way alleged by these women. I know it in the same way that I'm sure some of you Senators who are questioning me now also know that you would never do something like that, even though it is likely some of you drank too much at some point when you were also young adults."

and I'm willing to bet that if you were representing Kavanaugh and the prosecution had presented their questions the way she had, you would have objected to them.

I agree that I wish people could give answers as you gave above and that the simple TRUTH of it would be enough... I said exactly the same thing.... but the REALITY of it is that in the political as opposed to legal realm, such honesty is twisted and perverted by these hypocrites... and your video is IMO a perfect example. She's not seeking truth, she's already decided what the truth is... that he has a drinking problem... In a legal realm, his attorney would object to the inferences... or at the very least... be able to 'correct' it on cross. In politics, nobody cares. They got their sound byte.