Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_cinepro]

It seems like people sticking to this don't want to be seen besmirching Ford while saying they don't believe her. It appears to be a cop out. But really, it's down her being a liar or it happening. You can withhold judgement, but of you say it didn't happen, you're saying she's a liar.

In a purely "he said, she said" case, I would put the likelihood of either party being correct at 50%, meaning there's no way to know. Any evidence that can be brought to bear would tilt in either direction. If Ford says there were three other people who could corroborate the context for her claim (the gathering), and those three all say they don't remember such a gathering, then to me that has to tilt against Ford.

I understand Jeff Flake had to do what he had to do, but I don't understand why no one has pointed out that the rational response to the woman in the elevator would be to ask if it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her? If the answer is "no", then what relevance does it have? If I say I don't think there is enough evidence for Ford's claim that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, I'm not saying that such things never happen, or that something didn't happen to Ford. And I'm not imputing motives to Ford; I don't know all the reasons or factors that are involved in making such an accusation.

I'm just saying that she has leveled a claim against a specific person about a specific event, and the details that she has offered that are verifiable have so far proven false (according to those she named as being there). But in the end, we don't know if Kavanaugh ever did anything to Ford, and there is literally nothing to indicate he did other than a claim that is mostly unfalsifiable, and the parts that are falsifiable have apparently been falsified. I simply don't think it's fair to say "Hey, we don't know if you did anything, but we're going to keep you off the Supreme Court just in case..."

[_cinepro]

And my how easily you skipped over Ramirez's accusations. The FBI interviewed her, but none of the people she named.

As I said, Ramirez wasn't part of the investigation, but this report from the NYT isn't encouraging for her claim:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/p ... stify.html

Regarding the testimony of Kenneth Appold in the OP, it seems he is testifying that he heard about the incident, but wasn't actually there. The New Yorker had this to say:

Appold said that he initially asked to remain anonymous because he hoped to make contact first with the classmate who, to the best of his recollection, told him about the party and was an eyewitness to the incident. He said that he had not been able to get any response from that person, despite multiple attempts to do so. The New Yorker reached the classmate, but he said that he had no memory of the incident.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... classmates

Again, that's not encouraging.

[_EAllusion]

It seems like people sticking to this don't want to be seen besmirching Ford while saying they don't believe her. It appears to be a cop out. But really, it's down her being a liar or it happening. You can withhold judgement, but of you say it didn't happen, you're saying she's a liar.

In a purely "he said, she said" case, I would put the likelihood of either party being correct at 50%, meaning there's no way to know. Any evidence that can be brought to bear would tilt in either direction. If Ford says there were three other people who could corroborate the context for her claim (the gathering), and those three all say they don't remember such a gathering, then to me that has to tilt against Ford.

Why? 1 of the people is an alleged assailant and to the other 2, it would have been an unremarkable high school get together that you wouldn't neccesarily expect them to remember.

I'm just saying that she has leveled a claim against a specific person about a specific event, and the details that she has offered that are verifiable have so far proven false (according to those she named as being there).

No they haven't. Not remembering something you wouldn't be expected to remember is not "falsifying." If we hung out in high school and I say something significant happened on a night you don't recall, that doesn't mean my claim has been falsified.

What were you doing November 2nd, 1989? If you can't remember, does that mean anyone who came into contact with you that day is likely lying about whatever they said occurred? Of course not. What's significant to one person is not necessarily to another.

If Ford's story is true, then it's the night she was almost raped. To her friend, it's the night she maybe drank a few beers at someone's house.

[_EAllusion]

Ford testified to knowing Kavanaugh as a friend of someone she was dating. "Squi" as it turns out. She said she had previously met him. Kavanaugh backed off having not met her before through his attorney as it was realistic he could have had a aquiantence meeting. If he was a total stanger at a party, she could be mistaken. If she knew him as she claims, then there's almost no chance she would misidentify him. That's not how memory works.

I agree, but only up to the point that all of the confirming evidence comes out of her testimony. I even pointed out the relationship with Squi being someone she went out with previously on the board. But, and this is meaningful to me anyway, at every point where that could be confirmed by another party it didn't happen. I don't think that invalidates her testimony as some do. But it doesn't make it an ironclad source from which one can form firm conclusions.

It's simply not satisfying but reality that we don't know much for sure. That's not how facts work.

ETA: The false memory angle is a non-starter no matter which side one approaches it from. The limiting issue here is the evidence only comes from her personal statements.

I think if you step back for a second, this version of Ford lying is quite tortured. It would require that Ford has been lying about simple facts that justify her certainty Kavanaugh was her assailant starting over a decade ago for no particular reason, but not lying about the fact that she was assaulted. Is that possible? Sure. Is it plausible? Not really. It's more parsimonious just to think she's lying about her assault.

What's going on in Republican circles is people like Susan Collins don't want to be seen as calling Ford a liar because Ford is a sympathetic witness that lots of people believe. Sexual assault survivors not being believed is a particularly sensitive topic right now. But merely withholding judgment isn't enough either because that type of uncertainty looks bad when confirming Kavanaugh. So they try to split the baby by saying that Kavanaugh is probably innocent while claiming to believe Ford even though they aren't actually believing Ford.

They should either withhold judgment or have the courage to call Ford a liar.

[_honorentheos]

While I don't think she's lying nor do I believe Mark Judge can't recall the event described I can't argue the evidence supports a definitive claim either way. Is it torturing the evidence to accept Ford is the only source for Kavanaugh assailing her? No. From there it's not obvious what happened. But we lack evidence showing her identifying Kavanaugh early on. We lack supporting evidence they knew one another. We can't rule other possibilities out such as her not knowing him and then falsely associating him with her assault after having him identified as a good friend of Mark Judge. Whatever one prefers be the case, the evidence is not eliminating.

[_Maksutov]

While I don't think she's lying nor do I believe Mark Judge can't recall the event described I can't argue the evidence supports a definitive claim either way. Is it torturing the evidence to accept Ford is the only source for Kavanaugh assailing her? No. From there it's not obvious what happened. But we lack evidence showing her identifying Kavanaugh early on. We lack supporting evidence they knew one another. We can't rule other possibilities out such as her not knowing him and then falsely associating him with her assault after having him identified as a good friend of Mark Judge. Whatever one prefers be the case, the evidence is not eliminating.

All the more reason there should have been a more serious investigation. There wasn't. They didn't want it. The mental set was more or less that of McConnell ("we'll plow through") and Hatch ("Grow up"). This guy was partisan poison. They wanted him there because he would be their most pliable weapon. And they got it.

But while this administration and Congress don't care about properly investigating a Supreme Court Justice, they're happy to investigate the president's critics:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Trump administration lawyers are demanding the private account information of potentially thousands of Facebook users in three separate search warrants served on the social media giant, according to court documents obtained by CNN.

The warrants specifically target the accounts of three Facebook users who are described by their attorneys as "anti-administration activists who have spoken out at organized events, and who are generally very critical of this administration's policies."

[_Some Schmo]

They should either withhold judgment or have the courage to call Ford a liar.

What was remarkable during the hearing was listening to the likes of Graham and Sasse whining about it being a political hit job. I kept thinking, You're saying Ford is believable, therefore, how is this a hit job? You can't have it both ways.

I underestimated the Rapublican base. They can easily have it both ways, because logic and common sense aren't in their intellectual toolbox.

[_Some Schmo]

All the more reason there should have been a more serious investigation. There wasn't. They didn't want it. The mental set was more or less that of McConnell ("we'll plow through") and Hatch ("Grow up"). This guy was partisan poison. They wanted him there because he would be their most pliable weapon. And they got it.

This is why I have no problem calling the GOP rape apologists. If they actually cared about the allegations, they'd have insisted on a real investigation. Since we don't get that, I'm forced to believe they are fine with alleged sexual deviants in positions of power.

Course, we already knew that. They embraced Drumpf and would have put Roy Moore on the senate if they could have.

[_Maksutov]

All the more reason there should have been a more serious investigation. There wasn't. They didn't want it. The mental set was more or less that of McConnell ("we'll plow through") and Hatch ("Grow up"). This guy was partisan poison. They wanted him there because he would be their most pliable weapon. And they got it.

This is why I have no problem calling the GOP rape apologists. If they actually cared about the allegations, they'd have insisted on a real investigation. Since we don't get that, I'm forced to believe they are fine with alleged sexual deviants in positions of power.

Course, we already knew that. They embraced Drumpf and would have put Roy Moore on the senate if they could have.

There aren't any Republicans left. They're Trumpers to me. Full in for the cult of personality. Nothing conservative left. Nothing of the party of Lincoln or Reagan or Ike. Gone. Now they're nihilists with illiterate preachers and foreign agents at their side, dominating every branch of government and Still. Not. Satisfied. Not until they have a one party state. And they're getting closer every day. When we reach that point, the Constitution will mean nothing.

Democrats who are serious and sincere in the defense of the violated should give the final boot to Bill Clinton and all of his associates, including his wife. They were relentless in attacking women who cried rape 20 years ago. There is still too much hypocrisy on all sides.

[_Water Dog]