The Brett Kavanaugh situation is not especially interesting from a forensic point of view, since there is no practical way of anyone knowing what might have transpired in a private bedroom 35+ years ago (if indeed these two people ever met at all) . But it is kind of interesting from a human cognition point of view. It shows the worthless nature of denials in this kind of situation.
Christine Blasey Ford says Kavanaugh did X, Y, and Z. Kavanaugh denies X, Y, and Z. The average person can’t help thinking “the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, so I’m pretty sure that he did X and Y.” (Look at your Facebook friends’ statements and comments on media articles about this. People express their knowledge of what might have happened with the same certainty that they use describing what they personally had for lunch.)
I think he would actually have been better off by saying “Why don’t you ask her some more questions to see if her story makes sense to you?” or “Does it seem like an odd coincidence that she started telling folks this story, including her therapist, in 2012 when my name was put forward as a likely Mitt Romney Supreme Court nominee.” or “Gee, have you read ‘Factitious sexual harassment’ by Feldman-Schorrig where she talks about ‘the motives that most commonly underlie the wish for victim designation’?” or “Did you find out where the party was and go have a look in the bedroom of that house for yourself?”? If Kavanaugh had asked people to accept or reject the entire Christine Blasey Ford story, he would at least have a lot more people saying “I don’t think he did anything at all.”
[The same thing happens in Family Court in the winner-take-all states. A plaintiff says “the defendant is having sex with the 4-year-old, which is why I need to be the only parent” (this request will later be modified to “well, the child should be with the defendant only every other weekend”, but nobody will notice the apparent logical inconsistency in wanting one’s child to be abused 3 or 4 nights out of 14). The defendant says, Kavanaugh-style, “I didn’t do it.” The judge splits the difference in his or her mind: “Well, the defendant probably isn’t having sex with the 4-year-old, but something perverted is going on, so I’m going to make the plaintiff the primary parent and limit the perversion to every other weekend.” The primary parent gets a free house, a 15-19-year (depending on state) shower of tax-free cash, the pleasure of the child’s company, and free babysitting 3-4 nights out of 14. The defendant might have been better off pointing out that the accusations of sexual abuse didn’t start until the quest for cash was on and simply asking the judge “Is it plausible that every wealthy defendant in your courtroom also happens to be a child molester?”]
Readers: Do you agree that Kavanaugh’s denial didn’t convince anyone? If so, what should he have said?
Kavanaugh seems like a genuinely virtuous guy, given his lack of wealth and regular volunteering to help the needy. So I can see why he doesn’t want to lie even if facing a liar (I take his side now for the sake of argument).
I would say the following:
“I do recall that night. The accuser undressed in front of me and offered herself to me. I was put off by that and refused. She then upped the stakes and offered anal sex. I refused again and was even more put off. I then promptly left the room and returned to the party. This incident is etched in my memory because it’s not often that a 15 year old girl offers anal sex to a 17 year old. Just like the accuser, I do not recall the location or the date of the party. I do remember this strange and offputting interaction clearly.”
I wonder if anyone with PR experience can offer their perspective on such a response.
There is no reasoning with the MeToo crowd. I like the above suggestion, but it would not work.
Irredeemable Deplorable: He seems like a virtuous guy? LOL! More or less so than a Catholic priest?
One can find in the transcript of an divorce hearing a quote from our court appointed psychologist:
“There is no evidence at all that mr. anon for reasons is any sort of danger to his children, but the charge ms. anon for reasons is so serious that I have to take it seriously and so suggest to the court we keep the temporary order in place and revisit it in six months”
And there was no evidence, there were no statements from doctors, teachers, friends, neighbors, rabbi, or anyone in the community, but hey, the charges are serious and no one wants to be in the position to say they didn’t take the charges seriously.
Better safe than sorry.
Except that the charges always turn out to be that serious and there never is any evidence and the kids grow older and older and forget who their father is.
I read some Dr Blasey Ford’s description of her assault and she sounds sincere to me — which means nothing whatsoever in practice. While I do believe she was assaulted, it is trivial to come up with a number of questions that need a solid answer before one could say it was Kavanaugh or not. Let me preface with the fact I cannot remember the name of anyone exactly as they introduce themselves to me, so if someone I never met before had to be identified by name I would be unable to do so. I am also bad with unfamiliar faces. I cannot say Dr Blasey Ford has the same issue, but it is a common thing. Hence I see a whole spectrum of possibilities:
Dr Blasey Ford had never met her assailants before, only met one of the two once after, she was introduced to them at the party most likely by name only, she might consumed alcohol, impairing her ability to remember names and/or identify people correctly, only some time later when she saw his picture in the media and thought she recognised him she actually named Kavanaugh as her assailant.
OR
Dr Blasey Ford knew Kavanaugh before, so she was sure who he was at the party, and she was stone cold sober, so she was perfectly able to recognise and identify her assailants.
OR anything in between.
I have no idea where in the spectrum defined by these two opposing possibilities Dr Blasey Ford’ story sits (or if it sits on one of these two extremes), but it is perfectly possible that she has been assaulted, that she is 100% sincere and yet incorrect in identifying Kavanaugh. It is also perfectly possible that Kavanaugh did assault her. Ideally both party provide a testimony under oath and are questioned under oath by the Senate committee to assess the reliability of her identification — I am surprised that she seems reluctant to testify, given that she is old enough to realise that, barring a complete disregard for her letter, she was starting a process that would have lead her to that point.
I do understand that Dr Blasey Ford and her family have been threatened an harassed. The Democratic party has basically unlimited money to have provided her with private physical security at her address and workplace, and online after she wrote her letter and before she went public — I would not know whether doing so would make her less of a acceptable witness before a Senate hearing, but if that was acceptable the Democrats are culpable for not doing so.
> Do you agree that Kavanaugh’s denial didn’t convince anyone?
Yes, because the US is past the era when reason and persuasion meant anything. In our time, accusations are weapons and it doesn’t matter whether they are “true” or “false” but only whether they damage.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme” and sure enough we have seen something like this before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis
Trump is obviously the heretic Queen Elizabeth and the Pope is represented by an amalgam of Obama, Hillary and CNN. The bureaucrats of the permanent government are the good Catholics who are released from any allegiance even if they have “sworn oaths” to the “servant of crime”.
If it’s justified and even obligatory to use deceit against the heretical enemy then it’s irrelevant to wonder about the veracity of Kavanaugh’s accuser.
It is a real loser for Kavanaugh alright, which was Feinstein’s objective in raising this at the 11th hour after his appointment was a fait accompli — to taint him like Clarence Thomas was tainted — so every time you hear Justice Thomas’s name you think about him allegedly putting a pubic hair on Anita Hill’s can of coca-cola. Now in the future when you hear about Justice Kavanaugh deciding this or that you will think about him allegedly jumping on top of some 15 year old & his views will lose legitimacy. It will also intimidate future possible conservative nominees since they know this treatment will be in store for them too.
In the meantime, why no media coverage of the current allegations against Keith Ellison in Minnesota? Legitimate accusations of domestic abuse. With medical records to support the claim. Not some allegation from 36 years ago that conveniently turned up at the just the right time.
But I’m sure everyone jumping on Kavanaugh bandwagon is equally outraged with the Ellison situation. Right?
“Does it seem like an odd coincidence that she started telling folks this story, including her therapist, in 2012 when my name was put forward as a likely Mitt Romney Supreme Court nominee.”
If you are considering a career advising supreme court nominees, don’t quit your day job.
Neal: You’re not impressed by my suggestions, apparently, but do you have a better one to offer? If the answer is “there is nothing convincing he can say in response” then how would any male Supreme Court nominee ever get confirmed? Aside from her 36-year-old drunken recollection, there is no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford ever met, is there? Is there any documented connection between these two people other than Kavanaugh’s mom having heard a portion of a foreclosure case against Blasey Ford’s parents?
If there is nothing a male nominee can say in response to an allegation like this, then can’t I personally derail any future Supreme Court nominee? I just send emails to 200 different friends today regarding 200 different rapists. Each one is about a 35-year-old encounter that I had with a person who is currently a Federal appeals court judge. I can’t remember the date or precise location, but it was in the 1980s and in New York City. We were at a party and the current judge jumped on me and tried to have sex with me. I escaped, fortunately, but now I have PTSD. Then when the appeals court judge is nominated to the Supreme Court, I go public with my story. I offer one of the emails from 2018 as corroboration. It was sent months or years before this rapist was put forward for Supreme Court duty. Why didn’t I come forward earlier? It didn’t bother me that a Federal Appeals Court judge was a rapist, but having a rapist on the Supreme Court upsets me.
philg: There is indeed nothing that Kavanaugh can say that, BY ITSELF, should convince anyone. The fairest thing which can be done in this kind of case is to have an investigation conducted by a neutral expert. Decision makers can then use that report combined with first person testimony of all available witnesses to evaluate the credibility of the accusation based on the totality of the evidence, not just what Bret Kananaugh says. In the original post you concocted some extremely far fetched reasons for not believing the accuser (and some less far fetched) while completely ignoring the straightforward and obvious incentives Mr. Kavanaugh has to lie. It is true that such a process may or may not end up being entirely fair to Mr. Kavanaugh. However, he has no right to sit on the supreme court and any issue of fairness to him personally is entirely subordinate to the interest of the country to have the right individuals on the supreme court.
As for your paragraph #10.2, I think it is very likely that a competent investigation would be able to detect the subterfuge you propose. Proactively forging 200 sexual assault accusations to the level of credibility demonstrated by Dr. Ford would certainly require a lot more effort than your post implies.
Putin said on Facebook (IIRC) that Kavanaugh hadn’t done anything objectionable.
Putin knows better: he’s a former KGB officer after all.
Laying aside the search for truth, does it bother no one that the committee is hurrying this nominee but had absolutely no qualms about holding a previous one (to the point of not even speaking to him) for 293 days? This is another broken process to add to the pile.
Neal: Do you realize that all available witnesses have spoken already? No one remembers anything, including the survivor who doesn’t remember where and when, only who. Those two people say it didn’t happen. What will a neutral expert evaluate?
The investigation should be able to proceed, and if it takes time so be it. Consider Muller’s investigation that’s been going for awhile.
But what does it have to do with the nomination? At this point, there is no evidence either way. If the accusation is proven later on, the justice can be impeached and convicted, since rape is a felony.
What are we debating, really?
I would also suggest to open 535 separate investigation, one per each member of the Congress, on the charges of bestiality. Let them prove they didn’t do it!
https://www.change.org/p/petition-federal-definition-of-bestiality-as-obscene-and-federal-crime
Irredeemable Deplorable: It will certainly be difficult to investigate the allegations and the resulting report will no doubt be incomplete and could very well be inconclusive. However, even if no additional information beyond what has been reported in the media is available (which I don’t believe and don’t concede), there is value in having a neutral third party gather, organize, vet, and analyze that information. However, this is tangential to my point which was calling out a logical fallacy in the argument presented by philg.
Neal: Are you hoping that it would be the same FBI team that investigated (and cleared) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamerlan_Tsarnaev (after the Russians told the FBI that he was preparing to wage jihad)?
Or, given the age of the allegations, were you thinking that maybe it could be a Ph.D. historian doing the research?
philg: Is your point with comment #17 that FBI investigators are not perfect? If so, concede. However, your conclusion, that we should therefore always believe the man, does not follow.
I certainly never said “believe the man”! I have said that I don’t think it makes sense to imagine that third parties can develop knowledge about what happened in a private bedroom (especially in this case where the two people may never have met; the accuser could be entirely mistaken about the identity of the person with whom she was in a bedroom; nobody has said that these two people ever saw each other before or after the PTSD-inducing event, right?). So I wouldn’t invest time even in listening to the man! And, in fact, I said that I couldn’t understand why there were men nominated, or at least white men, for this job.
philg: If we agree that the behavior described by Kavanaugh’s accuser decades ago (if true) combined with Kavanaugh’s recent denials of said behavior (which would be perjury if the accusations are true) would disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court, then there are roughly three choices on how to proceed with his nomination:
1: Believe the women (ignore the man), reject Judge Kavanaugh as a nominee
2: Accept or reject the nominee based on a (potentially flawed) evaluation of the totality of evidence (I have suggested that an investigation by a neutral third party would be helpful in implementing this option in the fairest possible way, but such an investigation is not actually a central requirement).
3: Believe the man (ignore the woman), accept Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee.
From your post and comments I understand that you reject choices (1) and (2). The implication is therefore that you want us to “believe the man” even if you have not “said” it.
It is not a question of believe or disbelieve, Neal. Someone says “After doing a bit of drinking, I was in a dark bedroom 36 years ago with a person I hadn’t ever met before and never spent any time with since. I now think that this person is Brett Kavanaugh, prep school douchebag turned Republican asshole.” Certainly I have no reason to doubt that the speaker is sincere in this belief, but it can’t be proven or disproven. So it is the same situation as listening to two scientists: One says “There was definitely no God who set off the Big Bang” while the other says “I am pretty sure that this Big Bang + Inflation thing couldn’t have happened without a Jimmy Carter-style God.”
philg: Arguing about the semantics of belief is a clever obfuscation, but “belief” isn’t really central to the point I’m making, so I’ll rewrite #20 without it. The three choices become:
1: ignore what the man says, reject Judge Kavanaugh as a nominee
2: Accept or reject the nominee based on a (potentially flawed) evaluation of the totality of evidence (I have suggested that an investigation by a neutral third party would be helpful in implementing this option in the fairest possible way, but such an investigation is not actually a central requirement).
3: Ignore what the woman says, accept Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee.
With this formulation comment #18 becomes “always ignore the woman”, and by rejected (1) and (2) you are implying “ignore the woman”. Even if you see a big difference between “believe the man” and “ignore the woman” (I don’t) you haven’t supported either one in this thread.
As far as provability is concerned, the only burden of proof here is for Judge Kavanaugh to prove to 51 senators (previously 67) that he is fit to serve on the supreme court.
Neal: The original post is really about the dynamic of accusation and denial. You’re raising a separate issue on whether this guy should be approved. You’re assuming that if he did jump on someone 36 years ago at a party of drunken teenagers then the answer is “he’s a rapist and therefore he should continue to serve as an appeals court judge, but to bump him up one notch would be intolerable.” But that isn’t relevant to me because I would vote to reject him regardless of whether he attended the party described by Christine Blasey Ford (if indeed there was a party).
“clever obfuscation” That’s what keeps me coming back to this blog.
> Certainly I have no reason to doubt that the speaker is sincere in this belief
Of course you do. The Democrats want to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation until after the midterms, at which point they hope a Blue Wave would allow them to delay it until the next Presidential election. Kavanaugh could be the swing vote that changes a liberal court to a conservative one that makes all sorts of rulings that Democrats find inconvenient on trigger issues like gun control, abortion, etc.
Ford herself probably does not have a net incentive to lie about Kavanaugh considering that her personal life must suck quite a bit right now. But billionaires like Soros and Steyer have a gigantic incentive to set it up. Lindsey Graham, of all people, has the right idea: who paid for the polygraph? Will Ford set up a ‘go fund me’ site that somehow generates $1 million? Demand, meet supply.
“The original post is really about the dynamic of accusation and denial. You’re raising a separate issue on whether this guy should be approved.”
What I did was point out an implication of the original musings when applied to the Kavanaugh confirmation case (which apparently inspired them). Since you have been unable to refute that implication logically yet seem unwilling to accept it explicitly I respectfully suggest you consider the possibility that this means there is a flaw or flaws with those original musings.
“You’re assuming that if he did jump on someone 36 years ago at a party of drunken teenagers then the answer is “he’s a rapist and therefore he should continue to serve as an appeals court judge, but to bump him up one notch would be intolerable.”
I don’t think I said anything like that, or anything implying that. Please quote back my exact words in this thread which you think say or imply that so I can clarify what I meant there and endeavor to use less ambiguous language in the future. In any case, confirming a supreme court judge and impeaching a sitting appeals court judge are two different actions with entirely different criteria. More specifically, the bar for deciding to impeach a sitting appeals court judge is much higher than the bar for deciding not to confirm an individual nominated to the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no particular inconsistency with the position that Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court but also should not be impeached from the Appeals Court (I have expressed no opinion on either of those propositions in any of the preceding text in this thread).
“But that isn’t relevant to me because I would vote to reject him regardless of whether he attended the party described by Christine Blasey Ford (if indeed there was a party).”
It seems we agree on this, but I don’t see how it is relevant to this discussion thread.
LM: “Ford herself probably does not have a net incentive to lie about Kavanaugh”
I’m not sure that this is true. See the Feldman-Schorrig article about why some people get a lot of value, aside from any cash that they might receive, from being “validated victims”.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/17cc/8c39e26663d16f7e7e9a2187be34e636a667.pdf
From 18 years ago…
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/opinion/i-was-certain-but-i-was-wrong.html
When the case went to trial in 1986, I stood up on the stand, put my hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth. Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. It was the happiest day of my life because I could begin to put it all behind me.
In 1987, the case was retried because an appellate court had overturned Ronald Cotton’s conviction. During a pretrial hearing, I learned that another man had supposedly claimed to be my attacker and was bragging about it in the same prison wing where Ronald Cotton was being held. This man, Bobby Poole, was brought into court, and I was asked, ”Ms. Thompson, have you ever seen this man?”
I answered: ”I have never seen him in my life. I have no idea who he is.”
Ronald Cotton was sentenced again to two life sentences. Ronald Cotton was never going to see light; he was never going to get out; he was never going to hurt another woman; he was never going to rape another woman.
In 1995, 11 years after I had first identified Ronald Cotton, I was asked to provide a blood sample so that DNA tests could be run on evidence from the rape. I agreed because I knew that Ronald Cotton had raped me and DNA was only going to confirm that. The test would allow me to move on once and for all.
I will never forget the day I learned about the DNA results. I was standing in my kitchen when the detective and the district attorney visited. They were good and decent people who were trying to do their jobs — as I had done mine, as anyone would try to do the right thing. They told me: ”Ronald Cotton didn’t rape you. It was Bobby Poole.”
———————
See also
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-05-28-0805270526-story.html
“The exoneration by DNA is the 29th such case in Illinois. The case is another example of an erroneous eyewitness identification leading to a wrongful conviction”
LM: On the “no incentive” question, look at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey.html where it says “Read how Dr. Blasey went from the anonymity of academia to the center of a Supreme Court confirmation.”
In other words, a person who was formerly ignored is now famous.
The NYT piece also says, she wants to show up “so long as senators offer ‘terms that are fair and which ensure her safety,'”
Will Professor Ford be remembered as the first person ever to suggest that there might be an insufficient supply of armed police on Capitol Hill?
If she considers the ordinary level of security in permanently locked-down Washington, D.C. to be inadequate, what is she asking for? She needs to take flying lessons so that she can travel from California in a single-seat A-10 Thunderbolt surrounded by titanium armor? F-22s on both sides to guard against air-to-air attack? After landing at Andrews she will travel to the Senate in an M1 Abrams main battle tank with the 10th Mountain Division walking alongside? Navy SEALs will take her from the front door into the hearing room?
The formerly anonymous American now imagines herself to be a more likely target of assassination than a U.S. Senator.
Neal, you are missing philg’s point here. Do you think that any woman should be able to delay a Supreme Court nomination by months while simultaneously wasting government resources simply by writing a letter alleging vague claims of sexual harassment? If so, is there any function of government that should not immediately shut down on receiving such a letter?
philg: I’m sure some women derive status from being a victim in our insane postmodern world, but is it really a net positive considering that she had to scrub her online presence and is no doubt receiving huge quantities of hate mail? In any case, there are plenty of reasons to doubt her credibility.
Anyway, nice post. The real problem here is the weaponization of sexual harassment claims by the media, regardless of how the man replies. But I think there is hope, at least if you don’t live in Boston.
The gofundme for Dr. Ford is over 100k already. Why yes, there is a gofundme.
LM: Why do you say “she had to scrub her online presence”? What had she written that, on further reflection, she didn’t want anyone to see?
Why do you say “is no doubt receiving huge quantities of hate mail”? https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/kavanaugh-ford-death-threats/index.html talks about “death threats” against Kavanaugh and then cites two emails sent to his wife, neither of which threatens any violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/19/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-threats
says that the source for Christine Blasey Ford receiving hate mail is… Christine Blasey Ford (through her lawyers).
“She has been deflecting death threats and harassment and trying to care for her family and determine where they are going to sleep at night.”
So now she is a hero mom too. She is “caring for her family” while simultaneously being on the front pages. How old are the helpless infants for which she is caring? https://www.insideedition.com/who-christine-blasey-ford-new-details-emerge-about-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-46854 says that they are 12 and 14. The boys’ father isn’t competent to supervise the videogaming and McDonald’s consumption of these two?
“Neal, you are missing philg’s point here.”
The points I see are:
1) There is an important psychological asymmetry between accusation and denial.
2) For a wide variety of reasons, some accusations are “false”
3) It is often not possible for society to know with certainty the “truth” behind any given accusation and denial.
Is there some other important point I am “missing”? I agree with each of these and think they must be considered when crafting society’s response to accusations. The problem with the post is that these points are surrounded by a thick fog of fallacious innuendo which obscures other important points that also should be considered when crafting society’s response to accusations.
“Do you think that any woman should be able to delay a Supreme Court nomination by months while simultaneously wasting government resources simply by writing a letter alleging vague claims of sexual harassment?”
The question as stated doesn’t make sense because it is impossible for “any woman” (i.e. a woman who is not a US Senator) to “delay a Supreme Court nomination by months” because the confirmation process is under the exclusive control of the US Senate. If you actually mean whether I think the US Senate should “delay a Supreme Court nomination by months while simultaneously wasting government resources” in response to every letter “alleging vague claims of sexual harassment” it receives my answer is no.
zzazz; ““clever obfuscation” That’s what keeps me coming back to this blog.”
We all have our reasons for coming here. I’m here for the same reasons I prefer watching MMA to watching golf.
Oh lord, you people. Ok, let me explain how we can form a judgement on whether Dr Blasey Ford does correctly identify her assailant in Judge Kavanaugh (as I said above I believe Dr Blasey Ford is sincere in stating she was assaulted):
1) did Dr Blasey Ford know Brett Kavanaugh before the incident, and did she recognise him at the party before the incident?
2) who was at the party? does Dr Blasey Ford remember this information, with the names of the participants? where did the party take place?
3) if Dr Blasey Ford did not know Brett Kavanaugh before the incident, did he introduce himself with his full name to her before the incident? was the name of her assailant know to her in part or in full before the incident? if he assailant did not introduce himself before the incident, did anybody related his name to Dr Blasey Ford ?
4) did Dr Blasey Ford know the age of the assailant?
5) did Dr Blasey Ford know which school the assailant was attending? how did she came to know this fact?
6) was Dr Blasey Ford drunk or otherwise intoxicated?
7) if the name of her assailant was not known to Dr Blasey Ford, when did she associated Judge Kavanaugh’s name to her assailant?
8) [not to Dr Blasey Ford] how many pupils attending Judge Kavanaugh’s old school were also called Brett and were in the same year as Judge Kavanaugh?
9) [not to Dr Blasey Ford] how many pupils attending Judge Kavanaugh’s old school were also called Brett and were one year above or one year below the year being atteneded by Judge Kavanaugh?
(8 and 9 will let us get an understanding how many pupils called ‘Brett’ were at Judge Kavanaugh’ school, and were of the same or similar age. If Dr Blasey Ford knew the first name of her assailant and what school he was attending, discovering another 50 students called ‘Brett’ of the same or similar age as Judge Kavanaugh’s, or that Judge Kavanaugh was the only Brett at his school in the period of 1975-1995 would provide some level of prior to use in understanding how reliable her identification of her assailant is. This is probably one day worth of investigation for a competent adult with the legal power to access the records).
This is one civilised way of getting an handle on the question: ‘is Dr Blasey Ford reliable in identifying her assailant in Judge Kavanaugh?’. The question ‘why didn’t Dr Blasey Ford report the incident to the police’ is irrelevant, because whatever her motivations they have no bearing on the question above. The questions and intel detailed above would on the other hand provide a way to assess how reliable her opinion of Judge Kavanaugh actually is.
Phil,
I’m not sure if you’ve been following the scandal involving former Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, but when Archbishop Carlo M. Vigano accused Pope Francis in a published letter of lifting sanctions that Pope Benedict had earlier imposed on McCarrick and using him as a trusted advisor despite the open secret among bishops that McCarrick had sexually molested young Catholic seminarians, Pope Francis basically deployed the same defense you suggested that Kavanaugh should have deployed. Pope Francis basically told the reporters covering the scandal that they should do their own research to find out what the actual facts are and Pope Francis has since remained silent on the issue in regards to Vigano’s letter.
Peter: Thanks. I wasn’t aware of that. If a strategy is good enough for the Pope it should be good enough for a mere Supreme Court nominee!
Does Kavanaugh’s denial convince anyone? Probably more people were convinced there is no “there” there by Blasey Ford’s continued dithering and “negotiation” around the conditions she demands before testifying under oath.
G. Ranma…don’t you think Blasey Ford should have a bit of time to figure out the best way to lay out her case? All she’s asking for is a couple of days here, not weeks. If she doesn’t have a “negotiation” about this, she’s at the mercy of an 85 year old white guy who is hell bent on having his way…not to mention the 12 other white men.
Why should the Republicans make all the rules concerning her testimony? And, more importantly, what’s the rush?
Yes, what’s the rush really? Why not offer Dr Ford a chance to prepare well and to testify at a later time? perhaps in late November-early December?
In the meantime, proceed with the confirmation. Democrats are going to vote against no matter what, so there is no love lost. If Kavanaugh is proven guilty he will be impeached.
What is there to prepare? Given the gravity of her accusation and its timing, you would imagine she reflected carefully prior to launching what is arguably a smear at best and perjury at worst.
G. Ranma: Was it your intention to imply (as I think you have) that in this case (and presumably in all similar cases) we should always ignore whatever the woman says because it is just “a smear at best and perjury at worst”?
Neal said the options are:
“””
1: Believe the women (ignore the man), …
2: Accept or reject the nominee based on a (potentially flawed) evaluation of the totality of evidence …
3: Believe the man (ignore the woman), …
“””
Obviously, 1 and 3 are only options for people who are deeply sexist. It has been sad watching some prominent Democrats show their hatred of men by embracing #1. I have voted for a Democrat in every election for two decades. Now that I see them for what some of them are and most of them tolerate, I will not be voting for them.
I think we agree that #2 is the only reasonable option. The evidence is:
* The accuser says she thinks it was the accused, but she was not sure for three decades. Then she was. That is not how memory works.
* There are fewer than five potential witnesses. Aside from the accuser, all say it did not happen.
* Even the accuser does not know the day, month, or year of the event. The location is some house in a county.
What possible evidence could be found without a time machine?
In a civilized society, people are innocent until proven guilty. Given this evidence we have, how can anyone say the accused is proven guilty?
There is one more option: Exclude anything that happened in high school. Judge him on the merits of his professional skills and job performance thus far. The man has had a sterling record up to this point. His high school years have nothing to do with it. His personal live likewise, is spotless. If we all had to include our high school and college escapades, the unemployment records would look far different than what they are now. There’s just something perverted about going back that far with no evidence; without even telling her parents or friends before now. And someone should surely have recalled driving her home, or taking her to the party. I’m sorry, the story just doesn’t hold water.