Nate Silver's methodology isn't to assume that any accusation of lying means there's a chance he's lying. Nate Silver has been very clear that Kavanaugh's denials especially regarding his drinking read as extremely implausible given all the other available evidence. For instance, he's described so consistently as drinking to excess in a way that produces memory lapses that it would be really unusual if he never experienced any. It's not the accusation, but the evidence. His point was that there's numerous examples of Kavanaugh saying something implausible and the odds that they're all just an unlikely truth is low.
It's impressive how frequently Silver's critics go after him completely oblivious to how dumb they sound. Rich Lowry is either being dishonest about what Silver thinks, which Silver has been quite clear about, or he's being a total idiot about understanding what he thinks.
Kavanaugh and Perjury
-
_Water Dog
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
EAllusion wrote:Nate Silver's methodology isn't to assume that any accusation of lying means there's a chance he's lying. Nate Silver has been very clear that Kavanaugh's denials especially regarding his drinking read as extremely implausible given all the other available evidence. For instance, he's described so consistently as drinking to excess in a way that produces memory lapses that it would be really unusual if he never experienced any. It's not the accusation, but the evidence. His point was that there's numerous examples of Kavanaugh saying something implausible and the odds that they're all just an unlikely truth is low.
It's impressive how frequently Silver's critics go after him completely oblivious to how dumb they sound.
Well. I know a thing or two about probability theory, have more degrees than he does, and find him to be a buffoon. His attempt to calculate Kavanaugh's honesty was pure pseudoscience. There is no way to mathematically correlate Kavanaugh's verbal description of his drinking with memory loss events. What the “F” are you even talking about? Is there a memory loss from drinking incidence database somewhere?
There isn't even data to try and model such a thing, in a generalized way, much less getting into biological dependencies. You could have Kavanaugh fill out a detailed survey counting the number of beers he had every day of his life up to today and you still couldn't determine such a thing.
Further, even if you could magically overcome that, how are you going to tie that to his verbal description of high school drinking? You've got to jump from his verbal description to a fairly specific drinking frequency and quantity. Nothing short of laughable. Woo woo jargon and charts designed to manipulate feeble minds.
-
_Water Dog
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
Good times. Follow the thread and you can see Amy Schumer being "arrested."
https://Twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... 9225306113
#RedWave, bring it. Please, I beg, flood the streets, riot.
All the "cover up" sound bites from Democrats is great too. I thought the FBI was good? I guess they're bad today.
https://Twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status ... 9225306113
#RedWave, bring it. Please, I beg, flood the streets, riot.
All the "cover up" sound bites from Democrats is great too. I thought the FBI was good? I guess they're bad today.
-
_Water Dog
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
FFFFFF
Hilarious. It's like 9/11 truth.
Hilarious. It's like 9/11 truth.
-
_Kevin Graham
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13037
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
The Forgotten Affidavits
Four people say Christine Blasey Ford previously told them about her alleged assault — but senators seem uninterested.
WASHINGTON ― The day before Christine Blasey Ford testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her in high school, three friends came forward to swear to senators that she’d told them the story before his nomination was announced in July.
Their sworn affidavits were significant, since they indicated Ford had not made up her accusation just to smear President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. They were the first people aside from Ford’s husband ― who also submitted an affidavit ― to say she’d told them about what allegedly happened.
But the declarations got relatively little attention, as they were almost immediately overshadowed by another allegation from a woman who said she’d seen Kavanaugh at parties where rapes had occurred.
The evening after the three affidavits from Ford’s friends were submitted, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a key swing vote on the Kavanaugh nomination, said she thought they sounded important ― “like something I need to read and I am sure will come up at the hearing tomorrow,” she said in a brief hallway interview.
The affidavits did not come up during the hearing, except for passing references by Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). And Ford mentioned she’d told a few friends about what allegedly happened. But in the deluge of news that followed Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimonies, those affidavits from Ford’s friends have seemingly been forgotten.
Even with a crucial first vote scheduled for Friday ― which is partly a referendum on Ford’s credibility ― several senators seemed as though they’d never heard of the affidavits in interviews this week.
“I have not seen an affidavit to that effect,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another undecided senator, told HuffPost on Wednesday.
“I’m not sure which affidavits you’re referring to,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Another judiciary member, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), said he didn’t remember if he’d read the documents. “This isn’t a test, is it? I’ve read so much stuff,” he said. After a reporter described the documents, he said: “That was her husband and some friends. I probably did. I’ve read a lot. If it’s a test I hope it’s multiple choice.”
Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the senator in whom Ford first confided, didn’t recall the affidavits. “I can’t think of it right now,” she said.
In a followup email from her office, Feinstein said the fact that Ford had confided in these people “long before” the nomination meant the case was not a “he-said, she-said” as some have described it.
HuffPost’s questions about the affidavits could fairly be described as having a “pop quiz” quality, since senators this week have been bombarded with questions about even more recent developments. But that doesn’t mean the affidavits are irrelevant.
“They are what we would call ‘prior consistent statements’ ― in other words, [Ford] was telling people about this before she had the alleged motive to fabricate,” said Laurie Levenson, a former prosecutor and current criminal law and evidence professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “If this were a court of law, this would be significant, but it’s all gotten lost in the partisanship.”
It’s not a court of law, but Republicans hired prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Ford during last week’s hearing. Mitchell listed several problems she saw with Ford’s claims in a memo to Republicans after the hearing, saying she didn’t think a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence in front of the committee.
One issue Mitchell raised was that Ford’s description of the incident had supposedly shifted. Ford told the committee she’d confided in her husband, Russell, about a “sexual assault” shortly after they married in 2002. But, Mitchell noted, The Washington Post reported that Ford had told her husband about “physical abuse.”
“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific,” Mitchell wrote.
The affidavits from Ford’s friends and husband bear directly on whether Ford has told her story consistently. But Mitchell omitted those from her memo.
Russell Ford said in his affidavit that in 2012 his wife told him about a sexual assault she experienced in high school ― that she’d been “trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched.” She’d told him the attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh.
Another friend, Keith Koegler, said Ford told him her story during a conversation about an infamous sexual assault case at Stanford University. She told him “she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.
Rebecca White, one of Ford’s neighbors, said that one day in 2017, Ford struck up a conversation about a social media post White had written about sexual assault. “She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen,” White said. “I remember her saying that her assailant was now a federal judge.”
And Adela Gildo-Mazzon said she still has the receipt from the day in 2013 when she met Ford for lunch at an Italian restaurant in Mountain View, California. “Christine told me she had been having a hard day because she was thinking about an assault she experienced when she was much younger,” Gildo-Mazzon said. “She said that she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she then escaped, ran away, and hid.”
It’s not clear that anything would be different if the memos had received more attention, since Republicans have consistently said they think Ford is mistaken about what happened. According to that theory, these people are just repeating her mistake.
Asked about the affidavits last week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the people didn’t really have corroborating information. “Those are not people who witnessed the alleged event,” he said.
Levenson said Republicans have set a high bar for corroboration. “Frankly, in these types of settings, you don’t get eyewitnesses,” she said.
Democrats included Ford’s friends on a list of people they thought the FBI should interview as part of its supplemental investigation into Kavanaugh’s background. On Thursday, though, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) complained that apparently none of them had been questioned.
“It seemed to me it would be reasonable for those four individuals to be questioned by the FBI,” Coons said.
Ford’s attorneys have also objected in a letter that the FBI didn’t interview her friends.
=====================
ETA: OK I get that these don't count as eye witnesses to the event in question, but they do shatter popular Republican counter-arguments: 1) Conspiracy - Ford is just fulfilling a Democrat attempt to sabotage Kavanaugh's appointment without cause or 2) she just made this all up at the last minute because the 2012 notes don't say anything about a federal judge.
Four people say Christine Blasey Ford previously told them about her alleged assault — but senators seem uninterested.
WASHINGTON ― The day before Christine Blasey Ford testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her in high school, three friends came forward to swear to senators that she’d told them the story before his nomination was announced in July.
Their sworn affidavits were significant, since they indicated Ford had not made up her accusation just to smear President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. They were the first people aside from Ford’s husband ― who also submitted an affidavit ― to say she’d told them about what allegedly happened.
But the declarations got relatively little attention, as they were almost immediately overshadowed by another allegation from a woman who said she’d seen Kavanaugh at parties where rapes had occurred.
The evening after the three affidavits from Ford’s friends were submitted, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a key swing vote on the Kavanaugh nomination, said she thought they sounded important ― “like something I need to read and I am sure will come up at the hearing tomorrow,” she said in a brief hallway interview.
The affidavits did not come up during the hearing, except for passing references by Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). And Ford mentioned she’d told a few friends about what allegedly happened. But in the deluge of news that followed Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimonies, those affidavits from Ford’s friends have seemingly been forgotten.
Even with a crucial first vote scheduled for Friday ― which is partly a referendum on Ford’s credibility ― several senators seemed as though they’d never heard of the affidavits in interviews this week.
“I have not seen an affidavit to that effect,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another undecided senator, told HuffPost on Wednesday.
“I’m not sure which affidavits you’re referring to,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Another judiciary member, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), said he didn’t remember if he’d read the documents. “This isn’t a test, is it? I’ve read so much stuff,” he said. After a reporter described the documents, he said: “That was her husband and some friends. I probably did. I’ve read a lot. If it’s a test I hope it’s multiple choice.”
Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the senator in whom Ford first confided, didn’t recall the affidavits. “I can’t think of it right now,” she said.
In a followup email from her office, Feinstein said the fact that Ford had confided in these people “long before” the nomination meant the case was not a “he-said, she-said” as some have described it.
HuffPost’s questions about the affidavits could fairly be described as having a “pop quiz” quality, since senators this week have been bombarded with questions about even more recent developments. But that doesn’t mean the affidavits are irrelevant.
“They are what we would call ‘prior consistent statements’ ― in other words, [Ford] was telling people about this before she had the alleged motive to fabricate,” said Laurie Levenson, a former prosecutor and current criminal law and evidence professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “If this were a court of law, this would be significant, but it’s all gotten lost in the partisanship.”
It’s not a court of law, but Republicans hired prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Ford during last week’s hearing. Mitchell listed several problems she saw with Ford’s claims in a memo to Republicans after the hearing, saying she didn’t think a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence in front of the committee.
One issue Mitchell raised was that Ford’s description of the incident had supposedly shifted. Ford told the committee she’d confided in her husband, Russell, about a “sexual assault” shortly after they married in 2002. But, Mitchell noted, The Washington Post reported that Ford had told her husband about “physical abuse.”
“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific,” Mitchell wrote.
The affidavits from Ford’s friends and husband bear directly on whether Ford has told her story consistently. But Mitchell omitted those from her memo.
Russell Ford said in his affidavit that in 2012 his wife told him about a sexual assault she experienced in high school ― that she’d been “trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched.” She’d told him the attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh.
Another friend, Keith Koegler, said Ford told him her story during a conversation about an infamous sexual assault case at Stanford University. She told him “she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.
Rebecca White, one of Ford’s neighbors, said that one day in 2017, Ford struck up a conversation about a social media post White had written about sexual assault. “She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen,” White said. “I remember her saying that her assailant was now a federal judge.”
And Adela Gildo-Mazzon said she still has the receipt from the day in 2013 when she met Ford for lunch at an Italian restaurant in Mountain View, California. “Christine told me she had been having a hard day because she was thinking about an assault she experienced when she was much younger,” Gildo-Mazzon said. “She said that she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she then escaped, ran away, and hid.”
It’s not clear that anything would be different if the memos had received more attention, since Republicans have consistently said they think Ford is mistaken about what happened. According to that theory, these people are just repeating her mistake.
Asked about the affidavits last week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the people didn’t really have corroborating information. “Those are not people who witnessed the alleged event,” he said.
Levenson said Republicans have set a high bar for corroboration. “Frankly, in these types of settings, you don’t get eyewitnesses,” she said.
Democrats included Ford’s friends on a list of people they thought the FBI should interview as part of its supplemental investigation into Kavanaugh’s background. On Thursday, though, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) complained that apparently none of them had been questioned.
“It seemed to me it would be reasonable for those four individuals to be questioned by the FBI,” Coons said.
Ford’s attorneys have also objected in a letter that the FBI didn’t interview her friends.
=====================
ETA: OK I get that these don't count as eye witnesses to the event in question, but they do shatter popular Republican counter-arguments: 1) Conspiracy - Ford is just fulfilling a Democrat attempt to sabotage Kavanaugh's appointment without cause or 2) she just made this all up at the last minute because the 2012 notes don't say anything about a federal judge.
-
_Water Dog
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
Kevin Graham wrote:The Forgotten Affidavits
Sen. Hatch retweet...
-
_Water Dog
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1798
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:10 am
-
_Doctor CamNC4Me
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21663
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
I think this is the part that should be quoted:
During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions.
If the Democrats have or had an issue with him as a judge this would've been the time to seize on anything that would've been problematic for them. It's unfortunate they weren't able to do that, and instead went with the farce that was the last month.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
-
_subgenius
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13326
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
If the Democrats have or had an issue with him as a judge this would've been the time to seize on anything that would've been problematic for them. It's unfortunate they weren't able to do that, and instead went with the farce that was the last month.
- Doc
It's never been about Kavanaugh, the Democrats have concerns about November. It was a poorly timed and outdated rally-the-voters-gambit that is proving to be a "blow up in the face".
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
-
_EAllusion
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Kavanaugh and Perjury
Water Dog wrote:[
Well. I know a thing or two about probability theory, have more degrees than he does, and find him to be a buffoon.
Sure. I'm willing to accept that Silver is a moron and you are in a far better place to judge probability theory because your degrees dwarf his mere bachelors in economics and shelf full of honorary doctorates for being an internationally respected data journalist. Total idiot that Silver. At least compared to you.
Fortunately for me, the argument at hand doesn't require an advanced knowledge of probability theory. All Silver is arguing is that multiple instances of a person making ostensible knowingly implausible claims increases the odds that one of those instances is a lie. Lowry, who you favorably quoted, described Silver's claim flat out wrong, either due to intellectual dishonesty or incompetency. Lowry asserts that Silver is just citing the fact the people out there have claimed a bunch of things are lies from Kavanaugh. But that's not what Silver is doing. He's arguing that Kavanaugh is saying an awful lot of dubious stuff and reasoning out that with each dubious claim, the odds that one of them is a lie go up. Understanding this is accessible to the common man.
I do love how the Kavanaugh story has again made a certain kind of conservative a radical skeptic towards the most basic inferences of lying that they wouldn't employ in any other circumstance besides when their political loyalties are on the line.
He didn't attempt to calculate Kavanaugh's honesty. That's not what happened at all. Most likely, you thought he did that because you only read the screenshot you linked where it's kinda implied he did and haven't actually followed what Silver said. On the chance you did, it certainly looks like you've been bitten by the same bug that's making Lowry lie or read so poorly.His attempt to calculate Kavanaugh's honesty was pure pseudoscience. There is no way to mathematically correlate Kavanaugh's verbal description of his drinking with memory loss events. What the ____ are you even talking about?
All Silver did is note that Kavanaugh made a variety of implausible claims based on the evidence, and when you look at them collectively, chances are at least one of them is a lie. There's no calculation in that. It's just basic inference skills.
Humorously, Silver did cite science on incidence of memory loss at varying levels of intoxication at one point to illustrate what he was saying, but he didn't need to do that to make his point. I can tell how much you followed what he's been saying before making your proclamations.Is there a memory loss from drinking incidence database somewhere?
There isn't even data to try and model such a thing, in a generalized way,
Oh, there isn't?