(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

So the idea that he's innocent until proven guilty never enters into your equation?

I don't know if she was lying or not, but I find it to be a political witch hunt to think that someone went decades without reporting anything while this person moved up through the ranks, but now that he's up for the supreme court, we've decided not only to include an unsubstantiated accusation into a confirmation hearing... but to give it front page billing and prime time coverage.

This isn't really about believing her or not to me.... It's about giving such a public forum and such power to ruin someone's life for almost purely political reasons.

I find it ironic that in a review to see whether someone should sit on a bench that decides cases where the presumption of innocence is crucial, that the people standing in judgement of him (including you and me) don't have to. I'd be pretty indignant about that as well.

Confirmation hearings are supposed to be about whether or not someone is qualified for a position, and not whether or not they hold the right views or can prove their innocence from charges with no evidence from 30 years ago, and no demonstrable pattern of continued behavior. I don't blame the woman... and I never get to the point of believing her or not. I stop at the purpose of the hearing and the failure to provide meaningful evidence or a pattern of behavior that would disqualify him from service. I believe something happened to her... Kavanaugh may well have been involved... but in THIS country, you have to prove it... or at least get a hell of a lot closer than this. It's not Congress' job to pick the justices... and I think giving such a forum to such a weak case is an insult to our democracy.

Bill Clinton was allowed to be President despite CLEARLY abusing his power in the White House. Brett Kavanaugh should be denied a position because he can't disprove a 30 yr old charge that is unsubstantiated itself? And no, the whole 'life post' doesn't change my position. No evidence of a pattern

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 05:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 05:13 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

Quote:Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Pretty sure it was Brett Kavanaugh.

I think most rational people can see the difference between a 'righteous action' when it is one who is being attacked and being pretty upset about it and 'the ladies in the elevator', 'the Democratic committee members', and the 'demonstrators outside'.

I guess offensive use of righteousness directly equates to a purely defensive manifestation of the same for some. I think there is a boatload of difference between the offensive use of that character trait and one that is defensive in nature.

To be blunt, if I was accused of attempted rape in what really grew to be a political hit job, I can truly understand and sympathize with the righteous reaction from him during the hearing. I think it just a tad warped to compare that reaction to the purely witch hunter actions that stoked it.

I believe his accuser and you don't. Hence our different reactions to Kavanaugh, the trial and its accompanying circus.

Quote:If you really believe it fair to directly compare the 'righteousness' of Kavanaugh to that of 'the ladies in the elevator', 'the Democratic committee members', and the 'demonstrators outside' who are pretty much calling for his professional demise, then there probably are very few moral or societal based issues that we will agree on.

See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

So I will surmise anytime there is an issue (with political undertones) in which Person 1 says X, Person 2 says Y, and they are the the only 2 with knowledge, you will believe the person closest to your political philosophy then?

Good to know.

From my perspective, with objective facts, the *best* from your point of view case devolves into a he said/she said. Accordingly, with that background in the *best* case for what may or may not have transpired, I cannot say at all whom is correct.

I dont automatically assume his story was correct, but I find it very refreshing that you do.

But every single person with knowledge of that day/place/event did not support Dr Blasey Ford's recollection. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In fact her own best witness repudiated the events.

But the hearings werent *entirely* about that, were they? Crikey, they even launched into Kavanaugh for being a bad boy mean drunk, not to mention the two or three other unsubstantiated episodes that were slung at him.

So no, I dont view it in a "I believe him. Period." I believe in the balance of facts and proof -- of which Dr Blasey Ford came up with a sum total of zero.

But thank you for articulating that that is my belief. And thank you for articulating your belief in essentially indicting someone with zero supporting evidence. But, my guess is that a certain animosity of politics clouded that for you.

So with Blasey Ford no one will ever really know. With all the other pieces of crap that were fabricated and thrown at him, yes, I dont have any issue looking at his 'righteousness' as justified.

Of course, I would assume that someone who in their heart of hearts believes Blasey Ford's version (that is believes with no other substantiating evidence or testimony whatsoever), will look at the other mountains of issues he faced as 'well the asshat had it coming to him'. So be it.

But thank you for your candor.

(06-22-2019 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

So the idea that he's innocent until proven guilty never enters into your equation?

This is eerily reminiscent of the Oberlin justifications for (social) lynching the bakery.

Would a picture of a doughnut being lynched be counted as racist at this juncture in time? *That* should be Gibson's Bakery's logo at that point......

I believe(d) kavanaugh for multiple reasons, but the basic one is is I have personal experience with the way recollections can morph into memories of something that never happened.

I saw an old classmate, and our reminiscing wandered into a scrape he and I got into. As he remembers it, it was my idea. I remember it just the opposite.

I once ran into a former girl friend that I had broken up with 10 years earlier. As we talked, it became apparent she remembered the sequence of events that led to our break up way differently than I did. And that was a 10 year lapse, not 30, And Blasey Ford was drinking at the time. I can also attest that sometimes drinking leads to fuzzy memories and mistaken understandings.

No court in the US would convict on that, except the Court of Democratic Politicians acting to preserve a SCOTUS seat. So we get the scene of righteously angry people, feeling justified in doing anything they fell the need to do.

But also,there is the lack of witness support, the lack of subsequent bad behavior. Bill didn't have just the allegations of (name one). He had a whole slew of them, and many were Democrats.

Why exactly, did you believe her, and not him?

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

(06-22-2019 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 03:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  These are the key words to me:

"...in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified..."

Yes, all sorts of people get this attitude: devout Christians sometimes do, for example. That's why some will bomb abortion clinics. when was the last bombing, anyway?

You came up with a prime example when it comes to devout Christians. There was that recent police detective in Tennessee that lost his job recently after videos surfaced where he was giving sermons during which he stated that gay people should receive the death penalty. Talk about "certainty of his righteousness"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

So, a lone detective vs. Antifa and the shouting down of right wing speakers? Yep, equal.

Kind of points out what I believe to be true - most (90%?) of the people who feel justified by the righteousness of their beliefs and the certainty in them are...on the left.

Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Who was so certain of the righteousness of the Trump-Russia witch hunt? The right? Noooooo...

Yes, there are people on both sides - but not equal numbers, and not equal, not even proportionate, actions. When WAS the last clinic bombing?

Rather relevant story given your continued focus on Antifa, without recognizing similar issues on the right.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com...1561240791

Quote:Law-enforcement officials closed the state Capitol on Saturday, following threats from militia groups that were made while a partisan showdown has halted all activity in the Oregon Senate.

“The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate president of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow,” read a text sent out to senators on Friday that was shared with The Wall Street Journal. “The Superintendent strongly recommends that no one come to the Capitol.”

(06-22-2019 09:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 04:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 03:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  These are the key words to me:

"...in the certainty of his righteousness, felt justified..."

Yes, all sorts of people get this attitude: devout Christians sometimes do, for example. That's why some will bomb abortion clinics. when was the last bombing, anyway?

You came up with a prime example when it comes to devout Christians. There was that recent police detective in Tennessee that lost his job recently after videos surfaced where he was giving sermons during which he stated that gay people should receive the death penalty. Talk about "certainty of his righteousness"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-arO79hjo

So, a lone detective vs. Antifa and the shouting down of right wing speakers? Yep, equal.

Kind of points out what I believe to be true - most (90%?) of the people who feel justified by the righteousness of their beliefs and the certainty in them are...on the left.

Saying there are people on both sides who demonstrate this is not the same as saying it is 50/50.

Who was so certain of their righteousness in the Kavanaugh hearings? The ladies in the elevator? The Democrat committee members? The demonstrators outside?

Who was so certain of the righteousness of the Trump-Russia witch hunt? The right? Noooooo...

Yes, there are people on both sides - but not equal numbers, and not equal, not even proportionate, actions. When WAS the last clinic bombing?

Rather relevant story given your continued focus on Antifa, without recognizing similar issues on the right.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com...1561240791

Quote:Law-enforcement officials closed the state Capitol on Saturday, following threats from militia groups that were made while a partisan showdown has halted all activity in the Oregon Senate.

“The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate president of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow,” read a text sent out to senators on Friday that was shared with The Wall Street Journal. “The Superintendent strongly recommends that no one come to the Capitol.”

When I read that article the threat was never identified.

So to be straight about this you are comparing, perhaps even equating:

a) hundreds of rampaging people who are literally throwing explosive devices, yielding maces fabricated from metal locks, using the same maces, wielding and using 2x4s, and scores in not hundreds of weapons (many that when used could kill)

to

b) an unspecified threat, that may or may not be credible.

Is that a fair marshaling of the issue and equivalence that you are presenting?

Perhaps when a serious amount of meat is added to the fairly sketchy details of the latter, and perhaps that repeated, oh, twenty or twenty five times I would probably be in agreement with you.

Perhaps when a group of righteous righties band together to create threats on college campuses with the express intent to shut down free speech, say, forty or fifty times --- again I might be in agreement with you.

I would suggest hitting the records to find all those rioting conservatives trying to intimidate college speakers all over the place.

Let's give it a proper chance. Let's wait and see. If hundreds of rampaging militiamen take over downtown Portland, intimidating peaceful citizens and burning dumpsters, then Lad will have made his point. Give the lad a chance. It might happen.

Of course, maybe the State Superintendent was asking everybody else, like Antifa, to stay home, to avoid violence.

I guess the Republican Senators took the warning seriously

"But the purchasing of allowances would likely mean costs are passed down to the consumers, and prices for gas or diesel would increase -- a position untenable for the Republicans holding out from a vote. Rural Oregonians, who drive longer distances, and farmers, who use heavy machinery, would likely be disproportionately affected."

"The walkout got even stranger on Friday, when Democratic state Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward tweeted a text message she had received, saying, "The Senate will not be meeting tomorrow (Saturday). The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate President of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow."

No such militia showed up on Saturday, but the Capitol hallways were empty."

ANTIFA always shows up.

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

The Ronatae (sp?) story. In the yearbook, he and his friends were clearly calling her a slut and intimating that they had all been with her. That is crystal clear. When asked about it he said something to the effect of "The Ronate Club was because she was such a good friend to us. And we respected her so much.". It was total BS, IMO.

He and running mate in the yearbook... "Have you boofed yet?". In his testimony he said that "boof" meant fart. Why would you ask each other if you have farted yet? Weird. Many people called him out on this saying that "boof" didn't mean "fart".

I like to keep it anonymous on this board, so I will just say that I had occasion to spend A LOT of time in the 80's with the suburban DC elite private school crowd. Played sports with those guys for multiple summers back then. I did not spend the school years there. This was a few years after Kavanaugh. I don't keep in touch with any of those people but I'm sure some of their siblings went to school with him. I attended parties with the sister school crowd in the 80's. I never attended Beach Week but friends and family of mine did. The term "boof" was thrown around a lot and it meant anal sex. Not in any sense did it mean fart.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

(06-22-2019 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I believe(d) kavanaugh for multiple reasons, but the basic one is is I have personal experience with the way recollections can morph into memories of something that never happened.

I saw an old classmate, and our reminiscing wandered into a scrape he and I got into. As he remembers it, it was my idea. I remember it just the opposite.

I once ran into a former girl friend that I had broken up with 10 years earlier. As we talked, it became apparent she remembered the sequence of events that led to our break up way differently than I did. And that was a 10 year lapse, not 30, And Blasey Ford was drinking at the time. I can also attest that sometimes drinking leads to fuzzy memories and mistaken understandings.

No court in the US would convict on that, except the Court of Democratic Politicians acting to preserve a SCOTUS seat. So we get the scene of righteously angry people, feeling justified in doing anything they fell the need to do.

You do know that victims of sexual assault often take years to find the courage to come out with their story, right? These victims often blame themselves initially, fear ramifications from their accusers, etc.?

I get that memories can fade over time. Perhaps something as traumatic as a sexual assault would lead to a more solid memory than a break-up with a girlfriend? Perhaps a victim of a sexual assault would pore over the details of the sexual assault over the years more than you pored over the details of a scrape that you got into with your buddy?

What is your cutoff for victims of sexual assault in terms of timing? Write off their credibility after nine years? Five years? Six months?

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

The Ronatae (sp?) story. In the yearbook, he and his friends were clearly calling her a slut and intimating that they had all been with her. That is crystal clear. When asked about it he said something to the effect of "The Ronate Club was because she was such a good friend to us. And we respected her so much.". It was total BS, IMO.

He and running mate in the yearbook... "Have you boofed yet?". In his testimony he said that "boof" meant fart. Why would you ask each other if you have farted yet? Weird. Many people called him out on this saying that "boof" didn't mean "fart".

I like to keep it anonymous on this board, so I will just say that I had occasion to spend A LOT of time in the 80's with the suburban DC elite private school crowd. Played sports with those guys for multiple summers back then. I did not spend the school years there. This was a few years after Kavanaugh. I don't keep in touch with any of those people but I'm sure some of their siblings went to school with him. I attended parties with the sister school crowd in the 80's. I never attended Beach Week but friends and family of mine did. The term "boof" was thrown around a lot and it meant anal sex. Not in any sense did it mean fart.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

I sincerely hope you are never, ever on a jury.

(06-23-2019 06:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I believe(d) kavanaugh for multiple reasons, but the basic one is is I have personal experience with the way recollections can morph into memories of something that never happened.
I saw an old classmate, and our reminiscing wandered into a scrape he and I got into. As he remembers it, it was my idea. I remember it just the opposite.
I once ran into a former girl friend that I had broken up with 10 years earlier. As we talked, it became apparent she remembered the sequence of events that led to our break up way differently than I did. And that was a 10 year lapse, not 30, And Blasey Ford was drinking at the time. I can also attest that sometimes drinking leads to fuzzy memories and mistaken understandings.
No court in the US would convict on that, except the Court of Democratic Politicians acting to preserve a SCOTUS seat. So we get the scene of righteously angry people, feeling justified in doing anything they fell the need to do.

You do know that victims of sexual assault often take years to find the courage to come out with their story, right? These victims often blame themselves initially, fear ramifications from their accusers, etc.?

Can happen? Yes. Did happen in this case? That's a different question.

Quote:I get that memories can fade over time. Perhaps something as traumatic as a sexual assault would lead to a more solid memory than a break-up with a girlfriend? Perhaps a victim of a sexual assault would pore over the details of the sexual assault over the years more than you pored over the details of a scrape that you got into with your buddy?
What is your cutoff for victims of sexual assault in terms of timing? Write off their credibility after nine years? Five years? Six months?

In any he said/she said situations, my "cutoffs" are whose story is best corroborated and what are the inconsistencies. I don't know that either one is capable accurately remembering at this point. I do find certain circumstances behind her story to be highly questionable. He's a conservative judge and she's obviously a very left-leaning person, being out forward by very left-leaning politicians, at the very last minute, with some nonsensical details (like the second front door and a world traveler who can't come on a certain date because of her fear of flying) in her story. Yes, based on those factors, I think was a made-up story.

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

I did, in contradistinction to your defensive and rhetorical question.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

The problem with her testimony wasnt the testimony -- it was that there was zero proof (either physical or testimonial) that corroborated her claim. To the point that her best friend's interview with Federal officials cut against her.

You want to destroy someone's life on a bald accusation with no background evidence, with zero corroboration, you have every right to do so. But funny, that seems pretty righteous to me. Kind of the definition of that term, wouldnt you say?

And, as #s noted, there were a decent amount of inconsistencies and holes in her timeline and story as well -- especially with the issue of 'I cant fly'. Which is pretty much a documented falsehood.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you?

Again, yes I did. Notwithstanding your seemingly now righteous and rhetorical question.

Quote:I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

And the absolute inability for anyone to corroborate and the absolute lack of any tangible evidence corroborating Dr Ford's testimony obviously is okay for you to push you into the 'Dr Ford is obviously the truthful one here.'

As I noted before, I do not know what happened. But the absolute gist of it for me was that there is zero corroborating testimony for Dr Ford, even amongst the people specifically named *and* amongst any of the population that could have been in attendance. Without a scintilla of corroboration, all I can label Dr Ford's testimony is a bald allegation.

When the person that Dr Blasey Ford named as driving her there did not back her story of the events, nor did she even notice a change in demeanor at the named event, that is actually evidence tending to disprove her account. But yet that is given no weight in your move to judgement.

You are obviously far more comfortable than me in labeling Blasey's account 'fact', and Judge Kavanaugh a putative rapist.

And funny that 'inconsistencies' in Kavanaugh's testimony are jumped on as proof positive, but those same level of inconsistencies in that of Blasey Ford arent just glossed over, but totally not addressed in your calculus.

So no, even in light of the 'did you?' questions, I did. And the weight of what was proffered didnt meet the weight necessary for me to condemn someone. I guess if you take what Blasey Ford alleged as the unabashed truth (lock, stock, and two smoking beer shotguns) I might see Kavanaugh as 'righteous' in the way that progressives are gaining a notoriety for in various locales at the current time.

But, based on *all* the evidence, I dont. I see his 'righteousness' as indignation, perhaps even unabashed fury at a missile (actually a series of missiles when you stop and think about the *entire* episode) aimed at him in what was undoubtedly a Democratic hit job.

And yes, people from both parties should be enraged that people from one or more Democratic officeholder's staffs did leak this unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiable in that sense) bald allegation into the circus that it grew to. But I am sure there is and will be justification for that (those) leak(s) as well from other quarters..... Kind of part and parcel of the Democratic style of leaking of the Steele memo to homegrow some 'verification' for its use in other quarters.

(06-23-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

The Ronatae (sp?) story. In the yearbook, he and his friends were clearly calling her a slut and intimating that they had all been with her. That is crystal clear. When asked about it he said something to the effect of "The Ronate Club was because she was such a good friend to us. And we respected her so much.". It was total BS, IMO.

He and running mate in the yearbook... "Have you boofed yet?". In his testimony he said that "boof" meant fart. Why would you ask each other if you have farted yet? Weird. Many people called him out on this saying that "boof" didn't mean "fart".

I like to keep it anonymous on this board, so I will just say that I had occasion to spend A LOT of time in the 80's with the suburban DC elite private school crowd. Played sports with those guys for multiple summers back then. I did not spend the school years there. This was a few years after Kavanaugh. I don't keep in touch with any of those people but I'm sure some of their siblings went to school with him. I attended parties with the sister school crowd in the 80's. I never attended Beach Week but friends and family of mine did. The term "boof" was thrown around a lot and it meant anal sex. Not in any sense did it mean fart.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

I sincerely hope you are never, ever on a jury.

How would you suggest that a juror respond to a witness that they feel is clearly lying on the stand?

(06-23-2019 06:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I believe(d) kavanaugh for multiple reasons, but the basic one is is I have personal experience with the way recollections can morph into memories of something that never happened.

I saw an old classmate, and our reminiscing wandered into a scrape he and I got into. As he remembers it, it was my idea. I remember it just the opposite.

I once ran into a former girl friend that I had broken up with 10 years earlier. As we talked, it became apparent she remembered the sequence of events that led to our break up way differently than I did. And that was a 10 year lapse, not 30, And Blasey Ford was drinking at the time. I can also attest that sometimes drinking leads to fuzzy memories and mistaken understandings.

No court in the US would convict on that, except the Court of Democratic Politicians acting to preserve a SCOTUS seat. So we get the scene of righteously angry people, feeling justified in doing anything they fell the need to do.

You do know that victims of sexual assault often take years to find the courage to come out with their story, right? These victims often blame themselves initially, fear ramifications from their accusers, etc.?

I get that memories can fade over time. Perhaps something as traumatic as a sexual assault would lead to a more solid memory than a break-up with a girlfriend? Perhaps a victim of a sexual assault would pore over the details of the sexual assault over the years more than you pored over the details of a scrape that you got into with your buddy?

What is your cutoff for victims of sexual assault in terms of timing? Write off their credibility after nine years? Five years? Six months?

I don't doubt her sincerity. I doubt her memory and her mind.

My sister went to the DA and called the cops 100's of times to report that she (and her dog) had been raped by a man who lived in her walls. She decided that this man was a member of the grounds crew at her condos. So she had a real memory of a real man. I was afraid that this man would be arrested on her word, and although it would soon become clear she had mental problems, he might get deported back to Mexico. I did not want that to happen.

She believed it, and Blasey Ford believed it. My sister remembered it, and Blasey Ford remembered it. Both were fuzzy on details. Both worked in mental health,(my sister was a therapist in private practice), a field which seems to attract those with mental problems. I once had a nurse in a private mental hospital tell me the doctors were the craziest ones there. One of my college roomies became a psychiatrist, and the shoe fits.

Since we are giving credit to 30 years for her memory lapse, let's remember it was 30 years for Kavanaugh and his high school buddies also.

Her lack of support from her friends/witnesses and his lack of similar experiences/accusations in the 30 years since were big.

People write **** in yearbooks all the time. One wrote in mine about our "first time in a whorehouse". I wonder how you would interpret that if I was nominated? It was about a car wreck we had in a city 150 miles away after which we spent the night in a disreputable old hotel the other driver owned and offered for free until my parents could get there. But I am sure it would be presented differently if I were a conservative nominee for SCOTUS. I was 17. Luckily, I never had to present my yearbook to get a job.

So the "evidence" presented did not sway me against him. Mostly it seemed fabricated and blown up, or intentionally misinterpreted,, and Ford's testimony to me was suspect.

I did not mention anything about about her time lapse in reporting. I understand very well that some victims just want it over. I also know it was some despicable Democratic Congressperson or her staffer who made her letter public for their own private political goals. Typical of users.

But getting back to people who felt their righteousness justified actions, I think the ladies in the elevator are prime examples. I think the person(s) who leaked her letter is a prime example. I think many of the Democrats on the committee, if not there when they started, ended up there at the end.

(06-23-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

The Ronatae (sp?) story. In the yearbook, he and his friends were clearly calling her a slut and intimating that they had all been with her. That is crystal clear. When asked about it he said something to the effect of "The Ronate Club was because she was such a good friend to us. And we respected her so much.". It was total BS, IMO.

He and running mate in the yearbook... "Have you boofed yet?". In his testimony he said that "boof" meant fart. Why would you ask each other if you have farted yet? Weird. Many people called him out on this saying that "boof" didn't mean "fart".

I like to keep it anonymous on this board, so I will just say that I had occasion to spend A LOT of time in the 80's with the suburban DC elite private school crowd. Played sports with those guys for multiple summers back then. I did not spend the school years there. This was a few years after Kavanaugh. I don't keep in touch with any of those people but I'm sure some of their siblings went to school with him. I attended parties with the sister school crowd in the 80's. I never attended Beach Week but friends and family of mine did. The term "boof" was thrown around a lot and it meant anal sex. Not in any sense did it mean fart.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

I sincerely hope you are never, ever on a jury.

Especially MY jury.

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

So was she.

Quote:There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.
That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

(06-23-2019 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  See above. If you believed his accuser you would probably feel like I do. If I thought she was lying I would feel like you do.

I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

The Ronatae (sp?) story. In the yearbook, he and his friends were clearly calling her a slut and intimating that they had all been with her. That is crystal clear. When asked about it he said something to the effect of "The Ronate Club was because she was such a good friend to us. And we respected her so much.". It was total BS, IMO.

He and running mate in the yearbook... "Have you boofed yet?". In his testimony he said that "boof" meant fart. Why would you ask each other if you have farted yet? Weird. Many people called him out on this saying that "boof" didn't mean "fart".

I like to keep it anonymous on this board, so I will just say that I had occasion to spend A LOT of time in the 80's with the suburban DC elite private school crowd. Played sports with those guys for multiple summers back then. I did not spend the school years there. This was a few years after Kavanaugh. I don't keep in touch with any of those people but I'm sure some of their siblings went to school with him. I attended parties with the sister school crowd in the 80's. I never attended Beach Week but friends and family of mine did. The term "boof" was thrown around a lot and it meant anal sex. Not in any sense did it mean fart.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

I sincerely hope you are never, ever on a jury.

How would you suggest that a juror respond to a witness that they feel is clearly lying on the stand?

Without any corroborating evidence, I would hope that they dont jump immediately to a position.

If there is corroborating evidence *and* a 'feel' that a witness lying, I could see your point of view.

But that issue of corroborating evidence seems wholly lacking in your judgement process.

That is why I really hope to god you never serve on a jury.

That is, unless I was a plaintiff's counsel and really just wanted jurors to think completely and entirely on an emotional knee jerk basis. But, I dont do plaintiff work.

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

So was she.

Quote:There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.
That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

(06-23-2019 12:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Let's give it a proper chance. Let's wait and see. If hundreds of rampaging militiamen take over downtown Portland, intimidating peaceful citizens and burning dumpsters, then Lad will have made his point. Give the lad a chance. It might happen.

Of course, maybe the State Superintendent was asking everybody else, like Antifa, to stay home, to avoid violence.

I guess the Republican Senators took the warning seriously

"But the purchasing of allowances would likely mean costs are passed down to the consumers, and prices for gas or diesel would increase -- a position untenable for the Republicans holding out from a vote. Rural Oregonians, who drive longer distances, and farmers, who use heavy machinery, would likely be disproportionately affected."

"The walkout got even stranger on Friday, when Democratic state Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward tweeted a text message she had received, saying, "The Senate will not be meeting tomorrow (Saturday). The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate President of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow."

No such militia showed up on Saturday, but the Capitol hallways were empty."

ANTIFA always shows up.

Bump