B Kavanough and MeToo

[J.C.MacSwell]

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did you miss the previous mentions that this is not a trial?

But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grouds to do exactly that. Also, eyewitness testimony is evidence. 

Was there a reason to ask?

 

What exactly can you confirm was untruthful?

Ford was also allowed to leave out information if it was with regard to consultation with her Lawyers. Her lawyers stopped her a few times before she proceeded with that understanding. So they (though possibly not she) wanted to hide some information in spite of the fact she was not on trial. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

As long as that person was not involved. A person saying they were attacked is testimony, not evidence. Evidence needs to have some sort of objectivity and separation from the persons involved.

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,^[2] and physical evidence.^[3] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

"Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,^[2] and physical evidence.^[3] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

"Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

But it's not objective evidence.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

But it's not objective evidence.

It's not moving goalposts, either. It's legally considered evidence. As with all testimony, you have to assess the credibility of the person giving it.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It's not moving goalposts, either. It's legally considered evidence. As with all testimony, you have to assess the credibility of the person giving it.

 No evidence has been presented, thus far, in this enquiry; the current credibility of  the accuser and accused is about the same.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What exactly can you confirm was untruthful?

Good Lord, really? 

I can't confirm exactly what was was untruthful. I don't have an exhaustive account of it.

But...

He said he drank legally in HS, but the Maryland drinking age was raised to 21 while he was 17.
His drinking; people who knew him in college have contradicted him 
He said that certain people had exonerated him, when they had not (he's a judge. He should know this)
Devil's triangle is not a drinking game.
 

and more

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-lied-senate-judiciary-committee.html 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaugh-is-lying-his-upbringing-explains-why/2018/09/27/2b596314-c270-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3f0f1a198ba
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23511160/brett-kavanaugh-lies-about-everything/

And he had lied during his previous testimony

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-russ-feingold-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff

 

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 No evidence has been presented, thus far, in this enquiry; 

Well, it's not a trial , but as the above definitions show, evidence has been presented.

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

the current credibility of  the accuser and accused is about the same.

To you, perhaps. But not to me.

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Good Lord, really? 

I can't confirm exactly what was was untruthful. I don't have an exhaustive account of it.

But...

He said he drank legally in HS, but the Maryland drinking age was raised to 21 while he was 17.
His drinking; people who knew him in college have contradicted him 
He said that certain people had exonerated him, when they had not (he's a judge. He should know this)
Devil's triangle is not a drinking game.
 

and more

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-lied-senate-judiciary-committee.html 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaugh-is-lying-his-upbringing-explains-why/2018/09/27/2b596314-c270-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3f0f1a198ba
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23511160/brett-kavanaugh-lies-about-everything/

And he had lied during his previous testimony

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-russ-feingold-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff

 

Well, it's not a trial , but as the above definitions show, evidence has been presented.

To you, perhaps. But not to me.

Good Lord yes. I wondered what you could confirm as untruthful.

Thank you. I can almost guarantee none of what you wrote could be considered perjury. The only thing factually incorrect might be the wrt the drinking age. 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Good Lord yes. I wondered what you could confirm as untruthful.

Thank you. I can almost guarantee none of what you wrote could be considered perjury. The only thing factually incorrect might be the wrt the drinking age. 

Good thing I didn't claim that it was perjury, then.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Good thing I didn't claim that it was perjury, then.

No. But you said you could confirm this was untruthful:

His drinking; people who knew him in college have contradicted him 

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Seems everyone is throwing around the distinction that this is a 'job interview' for B Kavanough,
Who gets asked these kinds of questions for a 'job interview' ?

I had to sign a legal document stating I have never been involved in domestic violence for one of my qualifications and had a full background including a pointed interview for my clearance. Personal questions aren't uncommon for a variety of federal positions. 

[iNow]

In terms of untruth, he said repeatedly he’d never lost memory or had impaired memory at any time in his life due to drinking. 

Basic biology and physiology proves that’s a lie. 

It’s not like any of his untruths by themselves are catastrophic, but he seems entirely too comfortable telling small fibs to be considered a fair and impartial justice on the court. 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

In terms of untruth, he said repeatedly he’d never lost memory or had impaired memory at any time in his life due to drinking. 

Basic biology and physiology proves that’s a lie. 

It’s not like any of his untruths by themselves are catastrophic, but he seems entirely too comfortable telling small fibs to be considered a fair and impartial justice on the court. 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. 

He said that? Or something that would hold up in the context he was willing to answer in? 

[MigL]

Justice and innocence/guilt has nothing to do with being likeable.

We can all agree that C Blasey Ford is more likeable, and that B Kavanough's ideology, or political leanings, don't sit well with most of us ( yes, that means you Swansont and Ten oz ).
But she doesn't remember when the party occurred, how she got there or how she left. The people that she remembers being there can't ( or won't ) corroborate her story. The only thing she is sure of is that B Kavanough tried to rape her when they were teens.
If this was a real court case, her story would have holes big enough to drive a truck through.
I'd be willing to bet the judge would instruct the jurors to disallow HER testimony.

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Justice and innocence/guilt has nothing to do with being likeable.

We can all agree that C Blasey Ford is more likeable, and that B Kavanough's ideology, or political leanings, don't sit well with most of us ( yes, that means you Swansont and Ten oz ).
But she doesn't remember when the party occurred, how she got there or how she left. The people that she remembers being there can't ( or won't ) corroborate her story. The only thing she is sure of is that B Kavanough tried to rape her when they were teens.
If this was a real court case, her story would have holes big enough to drive a truck through.
I'd be willing to bet the judge would instruct the jurors to disallow HER testimony.

However this pans out, a staunch conservative is going to sit on the SCOTUS.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. But you said you could confirm this was untruthful:

His drinking; people who knew him in college have contradicted him 

Yes. That confirms it. 

Unless you can establish that this is a massive conspiracy.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

But she doesn't remember when the party occurred, how she got there or how she left. The people that she remembers being there can't ( or won't ) corroborate her story. The only thing she is sure of is that B Kavanough tried to rape her when they were teens.
If this was a real court case, her story would have holes big enough to drive a truck through.

If this were a court case these people would have been compelled to testify under oath. Law enforcement would have investigated. Any analogy to this as a court case has holes big enough to drive a truck through.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I'd be willing to bet the judge would instruct the jurors to disallow HER testimony.

On what basis?

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Justice and innocence/guilt has nothing to do with being likeable.

We can all agree that C Blasey Ford is more likeable, and that B Kavanough's ideology, or political leanings, don't sit well with most of us ( yes, that means you Swansont and Ten oz ).
But she doesn't remember when the party occurred, how she got there or how she left. The people that she remembers being there can't ( or won't ) corroborate her story. The only thing she is sure of is that B Kavanough tried to rape her when they were teens.
If this was a real court case, her story would have holes big enough to drive a truck through.
I'd be willing to bet the judge would instruct the jurors to disallow HER testimony.

Ford and her Husband claim (sworn affidavit) that Ford named Kavanaugh to her therapist back in 2012. If the FBI can confirm that with the therapist it at least knocks down suspicions this is all a political stunt by the Democrats to keep Kavanaugh off the bench. Kavanaugh wasn't a SCOTUS nominee in 2012. So one wouldn't be able to claim Ford's just making this up now to block him. If the 2012 claim is proven Ford has been making the claim about Kavanaugh for several years. Kavanaugh himself claimed this is a sham by Democrats rooted in 2016 fustrations and the Clintons. That was the defense he put forward out of his own mouth. Conformation that Ford named him as her attacker in 2012 at the very least is evidence that Kavanaugh's stated defense is inaccurate. Or do you feel a judge would disallow sworn affidavits and evidence from 2012? What politically charged motive can you imavy Ford would have had in 2012 to name Kavanaugh to her therapist? 

Quote

 

according to sworn affidavits her lawyers said Wednesday they submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A fourth from her husband says that during a 2012 couples therapy session, Ford named her attacker as Brett Kavanaugh. President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh July 9 to the Supreme Court.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-what-the-4-affidavits-supporting-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-say

 

 

[MigL]

But it was you, Swansont, who brought up the analogy to a court case, by saying B Kavanough's testimony would be disallowed by a trial judge on the basis of his being an unbelievable witness.
If you're going to open the door, expect me to walk in.

I believe I've commented on her selective memory, where only the event is remembered, not the corroborating circumstances which would allow for fact checking, as the basis for  for disallowing her testimony.
IIRC R Reagan and O North provided that same kind of testimony in the Iran-Contra affair.
Did you consider them truthful also ?

I agree Ten oz, I'm hoping the FBI can get the therapist's notes.
That would certainly get rid of the notion that this is a Democrat plot.

Edited September 30, 2018 by MigL

[Ten oz]

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

But it was you, Swansont, who brought up the analogy to a court case, by saying B Kavanough's testimony would be disallowed by a trial judge on the basis of his being an unbelievable witness.

Where did I say his testimony would be disallowed by a trial judge? 

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

I believe I've commented on her selective memory, where only the event is remembered, not the corroborating circumstances which would allow for fact checking, as the basis for  for disallowing her testimony.

I personally think the "selective" memory stuff is overstated. All memory is selective to various degrees. I remember the moment I got married but can't tell you the last conversation I had with my prior or the fist conversation after. The mind doesn't remember every moment of every day the same. Details which are peripheral to a traumatic or important event simply aren't going to be as clear. Dr. Ford herset explained the science behind it in her testimony. 

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

IIRC R Reagan and O North provided that same kind of testimony in the Iran-Contra affair.
Did you consider them truthful also ?

Reagan couldn't remember. Considering he had Alzheimer's (wasn't interviewed by special counsel till he was out of office), yes I consider his testimony truthful. 

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

I agree Ten oz, I'm hoping the FBI can get the therapist's notes.
That would certainly get rid of the notion that this is a Democrat plot.

Right, which means one of Kavanaugh's own stated defenses would be gone. 

[MigL]

Only the last paragraph ( added in an edit )  was addressed to you, Ten oz.
The first two were addressed to Swansont.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

But it was you, Swansont, who brought up the analogy to a court case, by saying B Kavanough's testimony would be disallowed by a trial judge on the basis of his being an unbelievable witness.
If you're going to open the door, expect me to walk in.

My mention was in response to YOUR remarks using language relating to a court case, so no, I did not "open the door." Further, I did NOT say the testimony would be disallowed by the judge.

 

[CharonY]

There are reports that the FBI investigations are limited:

Quote

But on Saturday, NBC News and The Times reported that the White House and Senate Republicans gave the FBI a list of just four witnesses to interview. Investigators are also reportedly barred from pulling records that could be critical to corroborating parts of the testimony given by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week.

Quote

The four witnesses the FBI has been permitted to question so far are Deborah Ramirez, Mark Judge, Leland Keyser, and PJ Smyth.

Quote

Experts said that while the night of the alleged attack is etched in Ford's memory, for other witnesses, it may have been like any other night, which could be why Judge and others who Ford says were there say they don't recall the gathering.

But Ford testified to the committee that six to eight weeks after the assault, she ran into Judge at the Potomac Safeway, a local supermarket where he worked, and that Judge was uncomfortable and "looked a little bit ill" when he saw her. She added, during her testimony this week, that she believed she could be "much more helpful" in providing details about her alleged assault if she knew the exact date or time period that Judge worked at the supermarket.

NBC News reported that the FBI has not been authorized to pull Judge's employment records.

"That is crazy," Cramer said of the constraint. "If he worked at the store where Ford says she saw him, it would corroborate one part of her testimony. Albeit, that is not a critical element, but it adds to the mix. The flip side is also true: if Mark Judge never worked at the store, then it calls into question one part of Ford's story."

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes. That confirms it. 

Unless you can establish that this is a massive conspiracy.

If this were a court case these people would have been compelled to testify under oath. Law enforcement would have investigated. Any analogy to this as a court case has holes big enough to drive a truck through.

On what basis?

What exactly do you accept as contradicted? Is it because some disagree with the overall impression he gave of his drinking? Or do you have something specific? You have an opinion. It may be correct, or it may not. You have nothing close to a confirmation, I am sure you understand the difference.

[MigL]

I must have mis-read this, Swansont.
"But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grounds to do exactly that"

[Carrock]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

I must have mis-read this, Swansont.
"But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grounds to do exactly that"

I don't know where that quote came from, but I doubt if Kavanaugh were accused in court that the judge could dismiss all his testimony,  without ensuring Kavanaugh would have any conviction quashed on appeal.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I must have mis-read this, Swansont.
"But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grounds to do exactly that"

I think if there is anything that can be confirmed as untruthful it would likely have been on Jake Tappers list:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/fact-check-jake-tapper-brett-kavanaugh-denial-claims-orig.cnn

There were 2 things Tapper included:

1. Kavanaugh claimed that the alleged witnesses denied the allegations. Tapper correctly points out that this was not strictly true, they denied knowledge of it, which is not the same thing.

2. Kavanaugh claimed the drinking age at the time was 18. Tapper points out that the drinking age was 18 in Maryland  at the time of the incident, and would change to 21 in Maryland prior to Kavanaugh turning 18.

 

#2 is incorrect. There was a grandfather clause such that those 18 at the time of the change were still allowed to legally drink. It would not fully change to 21 until June 30, 1985.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimum_purchase_age_by_state

This would not directly affect Kavanaugh at the time of the alleged incident as he was 17 at the time in any case. When he turned 18 he would have had to drive 10 minutes to D.C. to legally drink. But in any case there is nothing untruthful about what he claimed. It explains the easy access to alcohol for high schoolers at that time. (Let's not forget that as a 15 year old Ford admits to drinking at that time...she remembers it as 1 beer at the time of the incident, but was not questioned on it, or how much she tended to drink)

For Jake Tapper, Swansont, and other fact checkers out there...You are entitled to your opinion...Not your facts...

(   that's a takeoff on Tappers frequent closing line on CNN)

Edited October 1, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell