Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_EAllusion]

That's great, but if you gave me the names of three people who were supposed to be there and they all said "Sorry, I don't recall ever being at a football game with EAllusion during that time period...", I would be very skeptical of your story. Especially if one of them was supposed to be your teammate.

And hopefully you wouldn't hold that against me.

I think you keep dodging the point of my comparisons out of refusal to acknowledge that there's nothing unexpected about not remembering the event in question. In this case, the significance was the game, not ever having participated in football. Having participated in football obviously doesn't 1:1 map onto "attending a small get together one night at a person's house." Of course, I could just substitute it literally, but then I can't fathom how that would be helpful. All I can note is you reason with memory in a way that seems disconnected from how memory actually works.

[_honorentheos]

In this case, the significance was the game, not ever having participated in football. Having participated in football obviously doesn't 1:1 map onto "attending a small get together one night at a person's house."

It does map onto them knowing one another.

[_honorentheos]

But the precautionary approach (and lack of presumption of innocence absent conclusive proof) you rightly apply in a job interview applies even more strongly to a hearing designed to decide whether it is prudent to make someone a Justice of the Supreme Court for life.

The precautionary approach should also call into question what the consequences are of getting something wrong...and not just because you have an emotional dislike for someone. In this case, it seems far more reckless rather than merely taking reasonable precautions to tell someone that an accusation against them that could not be substantiated to the smallest degree effectively knocked them out of consideration for a job. You want to argue Kavanaugh demonstrated he was unqualified for other reasons, I'd probably agree. But I don't think it's objective or rational to say the Ford accusations as they stand today serve to justify disqualifying him as a precautionary move.

[_EAllusion]

In this case, the significance was the game, not ever having participated in football. Having participated in football obviously doesn't 1:1 map onto "attending a small get together one night at a person's house."

It does map onto them knowing one another.

No it doesn't unless they were claimed to have frequent, memorable contact. I looked at a list of people who graduated in my class not that long ago and I couldn't remember the majority of them.

[_honorentheos]

In this case, the significance was the game, not ever having participated in football. Having participated in football obviously doesn't 1:1 map onto "attending a small get together one night at a person's house."

It does map onto them knowing one another.

No it doesn't unless they were claimed to have frequent, memorable contact. I looked at a list of people who graduated in my class not that long ago and I couldn't remember the majority of them.

This sounds like you are mistaking that it maps correctly subject to subject, and are instead disagreeing that it is reasonable to think at least one member of that small group of interviewed individuals should be able to support the claim Ford would have met and known Kavanaugh when the assault is claimed to have happened.

[_EAllusion]

This sounds like you are mistaking that it maps correctly subject to subject, and are instead disagreeing that it is reasonable to think at lease one member of that small group of interviewed individuals could support the claim Ford would have met and known Kavanaugh when it is claimed to have happened.

I am saying that it is reasonable, even expected to have not remembered meeting Kavanaugh, but it would be not as extreme if we were talking just one of a few dozen people together for at least a year on the same sports team. Even then, not remembering wouldn't be crazy, but that's more opportunity than anything Ford has claimed. Cinepro was drawing the analogy past its intended comparsion, which was remembering the content of a game that was significant for one person, but not neccesarily anyone else.

[_honorentheos]

This sounds like you are mistaking that it maps correctly subject to subject, and are instead disagreeing that it is reasonable to think at lease one member of that small group of interviewed individuals could support the claim Ford would have met and known Kavanaugh when it is claimed to have happened.

I am saying that it is reasonable, even expected to have not remembered meeting Kavanaugh, but it would be not as extreme if we were talking just one of a few dozen people together for at least a year on the same sports team. Even then, not remembering wouldn't be crazy, but that's more opportunity than anything Ford has claimed. Cinepro was drawing the analogy past its intended comparsion, which was remembering the content of a game that was significant for one person, but not neccesarily anyone else.

I'm on board with cinepro's extension of the analogy. It helps clarify why it isn't unreasonable to be skeptical given the information we have so far. The analogy as you formed it assumes the event occurred to point out why some people might not remember a given event that was significant to you. Cinepro extended it to where we actually are which is in a state of trying to assess the validity of the claim against Kavanaugh pertaining to sexual assault.

[_EAllusion]

He didn't as he proposed far more points of contact by far more people. If that's intended to be what Ford claimed it's quite an exaggeration.

[_honorentheos]

He didn't as he proposed far more points of contact by far more people. If that's intended to be what Ford claimed it's quite an exaggeration.

His use of the analogy included three other people. It included a broad case where they could provide the smallest point of confirming evidence. In Ford's case, it's at least three people (Judge, Leland, P.J., oh and Squi makes four. Tobin would be five if he was one of the names we don't know) asked to confirm that at any point there was a reason for us to conclude Ford knew Kavanaugh prior to the claimed assault. Cinepro's analogy is narrower not exaggerated compared to what is asked of the evidence in the case of Ford's claim.

[_Kevin Graham]

His use of the analogy included three other people. It included a broad case where they could provide the smallest point of confirming evidence. In Ford's case, it's at least three people (Judge, Leland, P.J., oh and Squi makes four. Tobin would be five if he was one of the names we don't know) asked to confirm that at any point there was a reason for us to conclude Ford knew Kavanaugh prior to the claimed assault. Cinepro's analogy is narrower not exaggerated compared to what is asked of the evidence in the case of Ford's claim.

Cinepro is being obtuse, knowing perfectly well EA's point but trying to ignore it while turning an apples/oranges scenario to his favor. And that's what this is. You don't compare a small unremarkable gathering of intoxicated teens 35 years ago with attending a football game 35 years ago in which you would remember a certain getting having 4 interceptions. Hell, it is highly unlikely anyone outside his family and immediate social circle would even remember that for more than week, let alone 35 years.

Ford said there were four people that she knew at this small gathering. Brett Kavanaugh, Leyland Keyser, PJ Smyth and Mark Judge. Only Kavanaugh and Judge were present when the assault took place behind closed a door and both were highly intoxicated by her account so there is no real reason to expect either to remember much at all the next day, let alone 35 years later. Nor is there reason to expect Mark Judge to corroborate her account because he is obviously an accomplice to a crime and it would be self-incriminating.

Leland Keyser said she has no recollection of this small gathering but she went on to clarify that she believes it actually happened as Ford described it. Now for you and cinepro to use her against Ford is disingenuous. You're basically saying you know Leyland better than she knows herself. Because you think you would have remembered such an unremarkable small gathering 35 years ago.

P.J. Smyth's lawers said "he has no knowledge of the small party or gathering described by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford." According to Kavanaugh's own calendar, he mentions going to the movies with P.J. so the fact that she was able to nail down two of Kavanaugh's regular hang out buddies all the while Kavanaugh insisted he the two didn't even really know each other, counts as corroborating evidence.

The fact that Ford would ask his close friends to testify against him, strongly points away from the theory that she's being used as a pawn or she's making this up. If she knows what she is saying is false, then she knows these people aren't going to corroborate her story. So why insist they testify? The only reasonable explanation is that she hoped they would experience a moment of conscience and do the right thing. She already said she saw Mark Judge some time after this incident and it was awkward and she had the sense that he felt extremely guilty for not helping her at that time.

Here are four witnesses that corroborate Ford's testimony.

Adela Gildo-Mazzon said Ford told her “she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge.” According to Gildo-Mazzon, that conversation took place in June 2013.

Keith Koegler wrote that Ford mentioned her experience to him in 2016, when the two were discussing the sentencing of Brock Turner, the former Stanford swimmer who was convicted of sexual assault and received what was widely believed to be a light punishment.

Rebecca White said that in 2017 Ford “told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen.” White recalled Ford telling her “that her assailant was now a federal judge.”

Russell Ford said that she told him about the alleged incident near the time they got married about 16 years ago, but didn’t discuss details until a counseling appointment in 2012.