Kavanaugh Hearings

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, VanGnome said:

I'm not saying Fox news is more credible than other news outlets, only that they are adding to the discussion. A discussion that seems completely devoid of any kind of critical thinking or healthy skepticism from both sides. There's a BIG difference between sincerity and credibility. Rachel Mitchell (the prosecutor hired to question Ford) cut Fords credibility to shreds, obviously that was not evident during the live hearings due to the shenanigans played by the senate committee on both sides of the issue, but if you read Mitchell's scathing report it shows Ford to not be credible at all.

 

That imo is enough to warrant the same level of credibility at minimum be afforded this potential revelation. The fact that this is all playing out publicly is cause for severe skepticism on all accounts on all sides of the issue, however it seems to have a narrative of "believe Ford because she's a woman and Kavanaugh is obviously guilty because he's a white male. And a Republican nominee for Supreme Court Justice."

Cut her credibility to shreds?  Based on who's opinion?

 

By ALL accounts even those of professional experts Ford was VERY credible on the stand.  The only people saying otherwise are politicians and political pundits on the right.  Anne Coulter thinks she's lying of course, but the experts brought in for independent analysis think she's being truthful.  Rachel Mitchell, the hand picked person brought in by the GOP to question her says that her testimony simply does not hold enough weight for criminal proceedings.  Not that she isn't credible

 

The polygraph thinks she is being truthful.

 

The masses think she is being truthful

 

She offered to take another polygraph, be investigated by the FBI

 

You know who didn't?

 

Kavanaugh

 

Him being a white male doesn't make him a victim, but thanks for posting your reasoning for your doubt.

 

But just for fun, here is what multiple independent experts have stated.  Just for fun of course

 

 As former federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who prosecuted and supervised cases involving human and sex trafficking as well as child exploitation, we find her analysis to be incomplete and deeply flawed.

As an initial matter, many questions exist about Mitchell’s claimed independence, including whether and how much she is being paid, and by whom; what Senate Republicans talked to her about before the hearing; and why she ceased asking questions shortly after Kavanaugh began testifying.

 Indeed, although Mitchell cross-examined Ford on behalf of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee — quite unsuccessfully in our view — the committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, cut off her questioning of Kavanaugh shortly after his testimony began. Notably, this happened right after Mitchell questioned Kavanaugh about the possibly incriminating July 1 entry on his calendar. The end result was that Mitchell did not question Kavanaugh in the same way that she did Ford, nor did the Republicans make any attempt to do it for her. This alone severely undermines her assessment.

Moreover, we are stunned that a career prosecutor like Mitchell would not acknowledge that, at least prior to the hearing, no meaningful, independent investigation had yet been conducted. Nor did she call for such an investigation. We can confidently say that no “reasonable prosecutor” in this country — state or federal — would ever assess the merits of a case without conducting a basic investigation. Such an investigation would always include interviewing any other persons alleged to have been in the room at the time of the incident in question.

A reasonable prosecutor evaluating this case would attempt to corroborate the stories of both Ford and Kavanaugh by interviewing other witnesses, tracking down alleged witness Mark Judge’s employment records and by drilling down on Kavanaugh’s calendar to see if it could corroborate the party in question. These are all basic investigative steps that would need to be completed before assessing the credibility of allegations such as Ford’s. And yet none of these steps were taken before Mitchell wrote her memo.

Mitchell’s memo also fails to address a central question that any reasonable prosecutor would examine: motive. There can be no doubt that Ford’s life has been turned upside down — no one would want to endure what she has since her allegations have been made public. Moreover, when she first told her couples therapist about the assault — prompted by her irrational but understandable desire to feel secure in her own home — Kavanaugh was not, contrary to Mitchell’s assessment, on the short list of Supreme Court candidates. On the other hand, Kavanaugh has said numerous times that being on the Supreme Court was a lifelong ambition of his, and it became clear that the only thing standing between him and that seat are the current allegations against him.

Similarly, any reasonable prosecutor would also weigh the fact that Ford has repeatedly requested an FBI investigation and has submitted to a lie-detector test, while Kavanaugh repeatedly refused to directly call for either despite being pressed at the hearing to ask for an investigation. Mitchell’s failure to even address these issues is stunning.

 

Worst of all, the Mitchell memo does not even address Kavanaugh’s testimony. It is one thing for a purportedly neutral prosecutor to misleadingly frame Ford’s allegations as a case of “he said, she said.” It is something else altogether to ignore what “he” actually said. Mitchell does not address Kavanaugh’s evasiveness, his combativeness, his anger, his highly suspect answers to questions about whether he had ever blacked out from drinking or his suspect responses to questions about specific references in his yearbook.

[Toews]

9 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

I'm not saying Fox news is more credible than other news outlets, only that they are adding to the discussion. A discussion that seems completely devoid of any kind of critical thinking or healthy skepticism from both sides. There's a BIG difference between sincerity and credibility. Rachel Mitchell (the prosecutor hired to question Ford) cut Fords credibility to shreds, obviously that was not evident during the live hearings due to the shenanigans played by the senate committee on both sides of the issue, but if you read Mitchell's scathing report it shows Ford to not be credible at all.

 

That imo is enough to warrant the same level of credibility at minimum be afforded this potential revelation. The fact that this is all playing out publicly is cause for severe skepticism on all accounts on all sides of the issue, however it seems to have a narrative of "believe Ford because she's a woman and Kavanaugh is obviously guilty because he's a white male. And a Republican nominee for Supreme Court Justice."

Right. Trust not your eyes and ears but trust the report of a woman the Republicans hired to question Dr. Ford because they were too cowardly to do so.

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, VanGnome said:

I am center right. I don't blindly believe any side or any testimony. I expect relevant and competent cross examination to break down the obvious veils that EVERYONE puts up when their stories are being validated.

I do not agree with the sentiment that "people on the right" are "usually the same people who support mocking the families of dead soldiers, using dead soldiers to push racist narratives, deride sexual assault survivors and cheer a president who mocks everyone, lies about everything and has allegations from almost 2 dozen women against him."

Please, tell us how you really feel. There is WAY too much broad sweeping generalization in that statement and I expect better from you on that as I consider you to not be a raving lunatic.

I suspect that if you look back at my body of work, so to speak as it pertains to controversial issues and my stances on them, you'll see my arguments are remarkably consistent. I have yet in this ongoing discussion to be "EASILY picked a part" when no one is actually engaging me in the concepts I am trying to discuss, and instead engaging in weak handed attempts to discredit my position by attempting to strengthen theirs which on the surface appears to be the righteous and virtuous of the sides.

How do I really feel?

 

I feel as though Kavanaugh is in fact guilty of quite a lot.  That's inarguable.  I feel as though that even IF perchance that Ford is mistaken that the GOP and Trump are sharting on survivors everywhere.  Anyone in defense of the GOP or kavanaugh is essentially accepting the deridement of assault survivors the world over

 

I feel as though you're trying to stir up attention by posting an article by FOX news that is so easily picked apart it makes me question your intelligence because if you HAVE a history of arguing the same statements over and over again yet veer in to this kind of nonsense you are one of two things.

 

1.  Easily misinformed

2.  Easily misled

 

Subtly different yet at the same time egregious for their own reasons.  As well, claiming that his being a white male has anything to do with it raises all sorts of new questions regarding your motives for defense.

 

Anyways, the idea that a redacted and easily debunked statement from FOX News of an unnamed ex boyfriend whos timeline not only doesn't fit but also is so laughably easily debunked is credible enough to cast aspersions on Dr Fords credibility is sad.  Just sad.  it is essentially fodder for the illiterate and easily misled yokels that cheer and applaud trump mocking sexual assault survivors 

[VanGnome]

1 minute ago, Toews said:

Right. Trust not your eyes and ears but trust the report of a woman the Republicans hired to question Dr. Ford because they were too cowardly to do so.

You could phrase it also as hiring a prosecutor who would know to ask the types of questions, in the ways they needed to be asked that they as Senators are incapable of. However, that being said, the fact that they played the shenanigans they did in not allowing her to adequately cross examine Kavanaugh makes this a laughing stock. This is why the report is what holds more weight for me as it does not appear to have the same level of interference as her live examination did.

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Toews said:

Right. Trust not your eyes and ears but trust the report of a woman the Republicans hired to question Dr. Ford because they were too cowardly to do so.

it's 4D chess my man, 4 D

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, VanGnome said:

You could phrase it also as hiring a prosecutor who would know to ask the types of questions, in the ways they needed to be asked that they as Senators are incapable of. However, that being said, the fact that they played the shenanigans they did in not allowing her to adequately cross examine Kavanaugh makes this a laughing stock. This is why the report is what holds more weight for me as it does not appear to have the same level of interference as her live examination did.

Wait...what?

 

Hiring a prosecutor but refusing to allow her to do her own job and interrupting her when it came to serious questions then telling her her time was up and to not cross examine the alleged attacked holds...weight?

 

Kinda contradicting your prior statements but ok

[Toews]

1 minute ago, VanGnome said:

You could phrase it also as hiring a prosecutor who would know to ask the types of questions, in the ways they needed to be asked that they as Senators are incapable of. However, that being said, the fact that they played the shenanigans they did in not allowing her to adequately cross examine Kavanaugh makes this a laughing stock. This is why the report is what holds more weight for me as it does not appear to have the same level of interference as her live examination did.

Can you post the relevant portions of Mitchell's report that "cut Ford's credibility to shreds"? I am curious.

[VanGnome]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

How do I really feel?

 

I feel as though Kavanaugh is in fact guilty of quite a lot.  That's inarguable.  I feel as though that even IF perchance that Ford is mistaken that the GOP and Trump are sharting on survivors everywhere.  Anyone in defense of the GOP or kavanaugh is essentially accepting the deridement of assault survivors the world over

 

I feel as though you're trying to stir up attention by posting an article by FOX news that is so easily picked apart it makes me question your intelligence because if you HAVE a history of arguing the same statements over and over again yet veer in to this kind of nonsense you are one of two things.

 

1.  Easily misinformed

2.  Easily misled

 

Subtly different yet at the same time egregious for their own reasons.  As well, claiming that his being a white male has anything to do with it raises all sorts of new questions regarding your motives for defense.

 

Anyways, the idea that a redacted and easily debunked statement from FOX News of an unnamed ex boyfriend whos timeline not only doesn't fit but also is so laughably easily debunked is credible enough to cast aspersions on Dr Fords credibility is sad.  Just sad.  it is essentially fodder for the illiterate and easily misled yokels that cheer and applaud trump mocking sexual assault survivors 

It was poorly phrased or rather delivered, but the "white male" statement was meant as a satirical retort which is as laughable as the "for argument" for the me too argument. There's a lot of rhetoric in the news regarding how white males are under attack (seeded mostly by the right wing establishment). It's not something that I fundamentally believe, being a white male.

Next, the Fox article is a part of the discussion so therefore is relevant. I did also say that the claims in the letter had to be verified by the FBI for them to hold weight. In addition I linked a youtube video from a thought leader here in Canada that is not part of the left wing establishment who also says many of the same things that IF these claims are corroborated then it DOES cast serious doubt into Ford's credibility.

I did not personally believe Ford simply because I feel her story does not hold weight. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon any intelligent individual to reserve judgement on either side of the issue before understanding more of the actual facts, and less of the unverifiable first person testimony of A vs B.

All I did was add to the conversation, while continuing to support my position which is one of skepticism of BOTH sides of the issue, and to highlight that this woman may not be as virtuous as everyone here seems to be clamoring to support.

[VanGnome]

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Wait...what?

 

Hiring a prosecutor but refusing to allow her to do her own job and interrupting her when it came to serious questions then telling her her time was up and to not cross examine the alleged attacked holds...weight?

 

Kinda contradicting your prior statements but ok

My prior statements are that this entire thing is a debacle. I was DIRECTLY responding to the quote while giving my ACTUAL opinion on the matter afterwards, which is that both sides have been tampering. It is actually possible to objectively refute a statement or question without having to inject your own personal bias into the answer.

Edited October 3, 2018 by VanGnome

[VanGnome]

6 minutes ago, Toews said:

Can you post the relevant portions of Mitchell's report that "cut Ford's credibility to shreds"? I am curious.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf

Read the report for yourself, there is way too much in there to just copy/paste.

That said, I don't know if there was a report generated regarding her thoughts on Kavanaugh that I am incredibly interested to read as well. But more to the point this is about Ford's credibility specifically, and in reducing her credibility to nothing, it does not imply that Kavanaugh therefore has more credibility. I've said before, I believe that both of them are less than credible.

[Toews]

Just now, VanGnome said:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4952137/Rachel-Mitchell-s-analysis.pdf

Read the report for yourself, there is way too much in there to just copy/paste.

That said, I don't know if there was a report generated regarding her thoughts on Kavanaugh that I am incredibly interested to read as well. But more to the point this is about Ford's credibility specifically, and in reducing her credibility to nothing, it does not imply that Kavanaugh therefore has more credibility. I've said before, I believe that both of them are less than credible.

Sorry mate, but I don't have time to read the report especially as I already saw Ford's testimony and thought her to be a well spoken, credible witness. I was hoping that you would show us something particularly damning from that report but otherwise I have little interest in reading something from a prosecutor who was specifically charged by the Republicans to cut down a witness but IMHO was not able to do so. If you thought otherwise then that is your prerogative.

[VanGnome]

14 minutes ago, Toews said:

Sorry mate, but I don't have time to read the report especially as I already saw Ford's testimony and thought her to be a well spoken, credible witness. I was hoping that you would show us something particularly damning from that report but otherwise I have little interest in reading something from a prosecutor who was specifically charged by the Republicans to cut down a witness but IMHO was not able to do so. If you thought otherwise then that is your prerogative.

Well then that's literally not my problem if you are incapable of spending the time to be invested into the argument at hand. The link is there and you can read it when you have time.

BTW what your quote describes is confirmation bias. When there's information available that could cut holes in your argument that you are emotionally invested in, you dismiss it. That's not how rational discourse is conducted.

Edited October 3, 2018 by VanGnome

[RUPERTKBD]

I read the first page of the report and in it, Mitchell rehashes most of the same, hackneyed issues with Ford's testimony as we heard from various GOP members who like Mitchell, (and certain CDC posters) lack professional psychology training, but still attempt to promote the theory that because Dr Ford lacks perfect recollection of certain details of the assault, her credibility is lacking overall.

 

This "theory" has already been widely debunked, yet republicans and their supporters cling to it as if it were an AR-15.

 

Also, the idea that Mitchell's report is unbiased is laughable. She was hired by the GOP to conduct the questioning, but her only purpose ended up being an attempt to poke holes in Dr. Ford's testimony. She didn't even question Kavanagh, yet she fells comfortable in coming to the conclusion that the only person she was allowed to question is the one that "lacks credibility".

 

As further evidence of the partisan manner that this hearing was conducted, more than one prosecutor has already come forward in disputing Mitchell's findings, Here is one:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/01/rachel-mitchell-says-her-kavanaugh-report-is-what-reasonable-prosecutor-would-say-its-not/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56c070b6c897

Quote

 

Yet Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor hired by majority members as “staff counsel for the [Senate Judiciary Committee],” concluded that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh were not prosecutable.

Mitchell issued a report to “All Republican Senators” on Sunday, labeling the accusations “even weaker” than a " 'he said, she said’ case" of sexual assault.

It is undoubtedly true that these type of cases are among the most challenging to prove, but sex crimes prosecutors do it every day, often successfully. I handled dozens of these cases while working as an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn’s Special Victims Bureau, which leaves me respectfully disagreeing with Mitchell.

Quote

 

Although this was not a criminal case, Mitchell’s role was more akin to a defense attorney than a prosecutor, and defenders are in no position to issue prosecution reports.

She never spoke to Ford, as any lawyer or prosecutor would, basing her examination on available information, in part articles published by The Washington Post.

“No sex crimes prosecutor could stand behind that if Ford was their witness and not the subject of their defense. How she goes back to her victim population in Arizona is beyond imagination to me,” Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Sex Crimes Bureau and career sex crimes prosecutor, told The Post. “It’s outrageous.”

 

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by RUPERTKBD

[Shift-4]

43 minutes ago, Toews said:

Sorry mate, but I don't have time to read the report especially as I already saw Ford's testimony and thought her to be a well spoken, credible witness. I was hoping that you would show us something particularly damning from that report but otherwise I have little interest in reading something from a prosecutor who was specifically charged by the Republicans to cut down a witness but IMHO was not able to do so. If you thought otherwise then that is your prerogative.

It's only 9 pages 

[Toews]

48 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Well then that's literally not my problem if you are incapable of spending the time to be invested into the argument at hand. The link is there and you can read it when you have time.

Actually it's your responsibility to articulate your arguments, that is if you are actually interested in a "rational discourse". I am not going through an entire partisan report to find out what your arguments are. If you have read said report then you can easily cite any segments of it which drives home your argument.

48 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

BTW what your quote describes is confirmation bias. When there's information available that could cut holes in your argument that you are emotionally invested in, you dismiss it. That's not how rational discourse is conducted.

To cite confirmation bias you would have to demonstrate that I am willfully ignoring evidence that refuted my argument.

 

There is no evidence available in the op-ed written by Mitchell which one could not have gleaned from the hearing. Considering the only two real sources were Kavanaugh and Ford, I am not ignoring anything.

 

I simply have no interest in reading the analysis of a woman hired by the GOP to attack the credibility of a sexual assault victim because they were too cowardly to do so themselves. A woman who by the way has no background in psychology.

11 minutes ago, Shift-4 said:

It's only 9 pages 

And after I have read those 9 pages I am also supposed to discern what the OP's argument is. Yeah, no thanks.

[VanGnome]

33 minutes ago, Toews said:

Actually it's your responsibility to articulate your arguments, that is if you are actually interested in a "rational discourse". I am not going through an entire partisan report to find out what your arguments are. If you have read said report then you can easily cite any segments of it which drives home your argument.

To cite confirmation bias you would have to demonstrate that I am willfully ignoring evidence that refuted my argument.

 

There is no evidence available in the op-ed written by Mitchell which one could not have gleaned from the hearing. Considering the only two real sources were Kavanaugh and Ford, I am not ignoring anything.

 

I simply have no interest in reading the analysis of a woman hired by the GOP to attack the credibility of a sexual assault victim because they were too cowardly to do so themselves. A woman who by the way has no background in psychology.

And after I have read those 9 pages I am also supposed to discern what the OP's argument is. Yeah, no thanks.

Uh well you asked quite specifically to "copy the relevant bits that shred Ford's credibility" (paraphrasing). Outside of the 1st page which as Rupert mentions rehashes the argument of perfect recollection of certain details, it does summarize quite succinctly the inconsistencies not just from the hearing but of the other accounts of this "testimony" as given by Ford to multiple sources over a significant amount of time.

The rest of the report therefore is relevant, and thus you would have had to still read 8 out of 9 pages of the report.... not sure what you're trying to prove exactly other than having a straw man argument to rest your laurels upon. You do not have to have a background in psychology in order to establish credibility of a person's character, to insinuate otherwise is just asinine.

@RUPERTKBD she began a line of questioning against Kavanaugh, and had she been allowed to pursue her questioning, no doubt that information would have also made it's way into this report. These are the shenanigans I'm talking about. There seems to be a lot of conflation of the idea that because I disbelieve Ford then I am therefore supporting the Republicans and Kavanaugh... nothing could be further from the truth. When I speak about each aspect of this debacle, I do so on the merits of what it is I'm talking about, not conflating everything into a single argument.

Just in case anyone has trouble keeping tabs:

1. I do believe this to be nothing more than a partisan weaponization of two individuals, who for lack of a better term made errors in judgement during their youth and ended up in relative positions of influence.

2. I don't believe Ford's entirely truthful, there are too many uncorroborated variables that leave doubts as to the veracity of her claims.
3. I don't believe Kavanaugh to be a particularly honest, trustworthy or sincere individual.

I fully believe that if these were real and serious concerns, this should have all been put to rest in 2012 when it first surfaced in therapy (the claim is Kavanaugh was only named as a potential Supreme Court Justice nominee had Mitt Romney won the Presidential election against Obama), and if any truth to the claims would not have been admissible for any future nominations. But Romney didn't win so this got put to bed.

Now it's Trump as President and suddenly this is a big story again. That is suspect. If this was very real, and caused as much trauma as it's being portrayed it should have been brought to the public then and there, not to be used as a convenient weapon to be used by politicians.

[Toews]

25 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Uh well you asked quite specifically to "copy the relevant bits that shred Ford's credibility" (paraphrasing). Outside of the 1st page which as Rupert mentions rehashes the argument of perfect recollection of certain details, it does summarize quite succinctly the inconsistencies not just from the hearing but of the other accounts of this "testimony" as given by Ford to multiple sources over a significant amount of time.

State those inconsistencies then and we can debate their merits. Its your responsibility to articulate your arguments, not for me to go searching for what you are talking about. I can just as easily copy paste links to a bunch of articles and make the claim that that they refute your argument. That's not how any rational discourse works though, if you are going to cite a resource then take the time to pull out the relevant information that backs up your arguments. 

 

You seem like a well educated person so harken by to your time in any educational institute when you were asked to argue a thesis. Did you just copy paste a link to an article and state "Point proven."? 

25 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

The rest of the report therefore is relevant, and thus you would have had to still read 8 out of 9 pages of the report.... not sure what you're trying to prove exactly other than having a straw man argument to rest your laurels upon. You do not have to have a background in psychology in order to establish credibility of a person's character, to insinuate otherwise is just asinine.

You don't need a background in psychology to judge the credibility of someone. You can judge someone's credibility through their own words and history of false or inaccurate statements. I have already seen that Kavanaugh has misrepresented the statements made by potential witnesses, lied to the Senate about his drinking habits in college and made partisan attacks on the members of the Senate investigating the claims made by Dr. Ford. 

 

Dr. Ford may have forgotten some of the details of the night in question but she has shown far more integrity than Kavanaugh has throughout this process. Saying that they have the same credibility is what's asinine. 

 

If you have credible evidence regarding Ford's testimony being false then by all means feel free to articulate that. A letter written by an ex who does not even want to put his name on it hardly qualifies. The so called damning information he has presented has already been denied by the person he names in his letter. 

[thedestroyerofworlds]

I some questions for the Kavanaugh defenders:

 

Would you pet a dog that might have bitten other people?

 

Would you let someone stay in you house who might have stolen property from other people?

 

Would you have unprotected sex with someone who might have been exposed to an STD?

 

Are you OK with BK and the questions of his character sitting on the highest court in the US for decades?

 

OR

 

Would you require a lot more digging into the past of the dog, etc. before petting the dog, letting the person stay in your house, having sex with that person, and letting BK sit on the Supreme Court?

[nuckin_futz]

2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

 

This "theory" has already been widely debunked, yet republicans and their supporters cling to it as if it were an AR-15.

 

LOL I wish I could +2 this.

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

I some questions for the Kavanaugh defenders:

 

Would you pet a dog that might have bitten other people?

 

Would you let someone stay in you house who might have stolen property from other people?

 

Would you have unprotected sex with someone who might have been exposed to an STD?

 

Are you OK with BK and the questions of his character sitting on the highest court in the US for decades?

 

OR

 

Would you require a lot more digging into the past of the dog, etc. before petting the dog, letting the person stay in your house, having sex with that person, and letting BK sit on the Supreme Court?

The sad truth is, as long as they have a judge who will vote along republican party lines (especially as it pertains to women's reproductive rights) they don't care about any of that stuff.