kavanaugh

[mikefrench]

Is there even one contemporary witness who was at ANY of these parties in question that has corroborated ANY of the allegations?

I'm trying to be open minded that I'm missing something here.

a lot of questions like these really fail to apply the correct judicial standard. we're not talking about a criminal prosecution here, where the person alleging the assault has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (mathematically that's seen as a 99% standard, as in you need to prove your case so that a juror would be 99% convinced that it's true). we should be applying the preponderance of evidence standard, as would be applied in a civil case (mathematically that's seen as a 51% standard).

to other people at that party, nothing unusual happened. watch a movie produced in this era - 16 candles, revenge of the nerds, etc - and they portray clear sexual assault as silly misunderstandings or hilarious horseplay. so why would other partygoers have any memory of this specific party?

what we should be determining is, did she act in a way that's consistent with survivors of sexual assault? is her account consistent with what we know about fake rape accusers, or consistent with what we know about survivors of sexual assault? is her identification of kavanaugh believable and consistent with what we know about his activities during those years of his life?

one other minor detail that i've found noteworthy about this hearing: the format really doesn't seem to do the republicans any favors. the 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off interrupts the prosecutor's line of questioning, and gives democrats lots of opportunities to highlight the difference in treatment of the witness. that might somewhat flip though when kavanaugh is testifying, we'll see.

[vhstapes]

Yeah I'm not sure what to make of that. Doesn't seem like normal human behavior.

It's because they're horrible at pretending to be townsfolk.

[mikefrench]

well the Rs produced 2 dudes this morning that are claiming that it was THEM that actually sexually assaulted ford and not kavanaugh/judge.

this is also kind of a self-own, because it reinforces the claim that sexual assault was possible or likely at these parties/gatherings.

[Aglets]

Fwiw Mike I actually agree with you on the preponderance of evidence point. I would not require Ford to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt here either. But that big question I asked and is being asked by many Kavanaugh defenders I think is very reasonable. Especially for the later accusations that apparently took place in VERY public settings.

[Hari Seldon]

all kinds of media outlets have fact checked the * out of the claims of lying to the senate earlier in his career and nothing holds water.

this is not true. please provide sources.

kavanaugh's blatant dishonesty (i posted about this on page 10 of this thread): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwgYl9n ... u.be&t=513

Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No President has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

it's fawning, it's silly, it's something that is impossible for kavanaugh to have anything close to definitive knowledge about.

as to the mazie hirono quote that got some of you all bent out of shape - she is accurately describing kavanaugh. he is outcome driven. he has been a republican political operative his entire life. those are true statements of clear facts. combine that with his history of dishonesty and it's not a hard nomination to oppose.

Ok, if it was that long ago I probably didn't read your specifics. I might look at it later. I only view "participated" threads through Tapatalk since I don't play swccg, so I didn't know there was a Kavanaugh thread until it had been up for a while. I know of all supposed lies that have been suggested by various partisans nothing has been objectively a lie. Dems think Kavanaugh is lying because they don't believe what he says about a handful of events, and maybe he is, I don't know him personally or know his mind, but there's no actionable perjury as people seem to suggest.

That second statement is fawning and silly, yes. Are people saying that is a lie or dishonest? It's clearly hyperbole.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[mikefrench]

One other thing about corroboration

I freely concede that not every allegation has the same weight. Some have pretty high levels of credibility imo, others have less, some have very little. But certainly, if someone accused a man of sexual assault, and then 3 other women independently stood up and said "he did something similar to me too" we would view those other accounts as corroboration. We would ALSO look for internal corroboration of each account (physical evidence, witnesses, behavior of each individual after account - ie did assailant try to destroy evidence, did victim engage in what we understand as typical behavior for a victim of sexual assault), but I think it's pretty clear that there is a good level of external corroboration regarding kavanaugh. And to me, what that paints is a picture of a man who engaged in regular binge drinking as a young adult, and ensuing activities that are not at all surprising results of binge drinking around other young adults. We trained multiple generations of young men to not understand consent, to not value female autonomy, to understand sex as a conquest, to feel an overbearing need to impress other men in social situations, to equate physical strength and emotional callousness with high social standing, and so on. Sexual assault is a predictable result of that training.

[AdmiralMotti89]

It really is, so long as you ignore that he lied to the senate multiple times earlier in his career, and that his first statement after trump’s announcement was a fawning lie. I posted about these things earlier in this thread and no one engaged on it.

Not sure about what the lie after Trumps announcement means, but all kinds of media outlets have fact checked the * out of the claims of lying to the senate earlier in his career and nothing holds water. I presume most in this thread know that as to why you didn't get any engagement.

The alleged lying has nothing to do with what Hirono was getting at. It's a red herring. The lying to the senate or whatever is a deflection from the truly awful point Hirono was actually making. She was saying she doesn't believe his denial of the allegations because of how he approaches his cases.

She is suggesting that someone doesn't deserve the presumption of innocence in regards to allegations of very serious crimes when they make decisions that (allegedly) have a political bias that she doesn't agree with.

Imagine if the same standard were applied to Clinton and Broaddrick. His denial of those allegations (technically his lawyer's denial on his behalf) does not entitle him the presumption of innocence because of how he approached vetoing legislation, for example?

Spin doctors can spin all they like, and deflect all they want. But it won't change that what Hirono is fundamentally saying here is that people whose political beliefs she disagrees with don't deserve the presumption of innocence when accused because of those beliefs.

[mikefrench]

it feels like there's some confusion when I or Hirono call Kavanaugh dishonest.

This is not because we don't believe him regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct.

It is because of this: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rings.html

[mikefrench]

One thing I will give partial credit on

I think Hirono and others are completely correct when they allege that Kavanaugh (and Scalia, and Alito, and Gorsuch) are "outcome-driven." I think it's just obvious, they craft opinions based on the outcome they want and then work backwards with legal theory to get there. As a result, there is no intellectual consistency when it comes to Constitutional originalism. In one case, they will decry liberals reading the Constitution incorrectly when clearly the Founders meant this or that. In another case, they'll re-write the 2nd amendment, ignoring the breadth and depth of both stare decisis as well as the plain text of the Amendment and the clear intent of the Founders.

Partial credit is given because I think often liberals do not see their own judges as being outcome driven, but they are. The difference is, they admit it and have a consistent judicial philosophy undergirding it, that limits how intensely and how often the outcome can drive the result (stare decisis). Liberals drive outcomes, but have a slow, plodding approach that results in small course corrections toward the outcomes they prefer (with very rare departures from this, and I acknowledge that others see this differently, such as with gay marriage - I see that as a slow plodding move toward equality that began in the 1950s with Loving v Virginia, continued on through Lawrence v Texas, then to the DOMA case and eventually Obergefell). Conservatives drive outcomes, but jerk the court as far and as fast as they want to when they get the votes (DC v Heller, Janus v AFSCME, etc).

[Aglets]

I'll give some partial credit too. After Hirono made the decision to turn the Kavanaugh allegations into a fundraising email opportunity. .....at least she is now saying that was wrong.

[WiseMarsellus]

i wish i knew the science behind it, but i am given to understand that we as humans are almost always outcome-driven in that way. that most of the justifications for how we feel are post-facto rationalizations for what we've already subconsciously decided

[Aglets]

This distinguishes her from Elizabeth Warren btw who did the same thing with no apology.

[Gergall]

Is there even one contemporary witness who was at ANY of these parties in question that has corroborated ANY of the allegations?

I'm trying to be open minded that I'm missing something here.

As an open-minded spectator, would you support an investigation to uncover as much information as possible?

[Aglets]

i wish i knew the science behind it, but i am given to understand that we as humans are almost always outcome-driven in that way. that most of the justifications for how we feel are post-facto rationalizations for what we've already subconsciously decided

Of course this is 100% true and any claims made that only one side does it or whatever should be immediately dismissed. Note i am not accusing mf of making such a claim.

[Aglets]

Is there even one contemporary witness who was at ANY of these parties in question that has corroborated ANY of the allegations?

I'm trying to be open minded that I'm missing something here.

As an open-minded spectator, would you support an investigation to uncover as much information as possible?

Sure. Or just cut him loose now. I'd be fine with either outcome.

[mikefrench]

This distinguishes her from Elizabeth Warren btw who did the same thing with no apology.

Every member of Congress is constantly fundraising and generally has 90+% of that delegated to staffers, who are constantly sending out those types of emails to previous donors. I’m very much interested in campaign finance reforms that would eliminate all of that.

[mikefrench]

i wish i knew the science behind it, but i am given to understand that we as humans are almost always outcome-driven in that way. that most of the justifications for how we feel are post-facto rationalizations for what we've already subconsciously decided

just to be clear

we HAD a system that provided a CHECK against outcome-driven jurisprudence, a system that the vast majority of judges from both sides of the aisle agreed was a good system (stare decisis).

conservatives decided that two decades of liberal judges was such a train wreck that they should craft a new system to supplant that system, and they provided a system (originalism) that drove judges to EVEN MORE outcome-driven decisions.

[Hunter]

as to the mazie hirono quote that got some of you all bent out of shape - she is accurately describing kavanaugh. he is outcome driven. he has been a republican political operative his entire life. those are true statements of clear facts. combine that with his history of dishonesty and it's not a hard nomination to oppose.

The quote has nothing to do with opposing the nomination. It has to do with refusing to extend him "the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America." If Kavanaugh suddenly decided he no longer wanted the nomination, and retired, does the quote suddenly become any less shocking, or any less wrong? No, and no.

[mikefrench]

jake tapper asked an idiotic question.

presumption of innocence has nothing to do with this confirmation hearing. it's not a criminal prosecution, no criminal charges have been filed. it's like asking "if this nomination is postponed, does Kavanaugh have the protection from future questioning because of the double jeopardy principle?" it's nonsense.

Hirono gave a sensible answer about credibility to an idiotic question that confused a confirmation hearing with a criminal prosecution.

[mikefrench]

Kavanaugh kinda got choked up talking about his mom, it was sincere and played well. His intense anger earlier did not seem to play well.