Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_Some Schmo]

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.

I agree. It would be the politically smart thing to do for Democrats to disown the Clintons completely, but campaigning isn't a Democrat strength. They're more into actually governing.

Rapublicans (i. e. Drumpf supporters) seemed to have seized on Bill Clinton as a justification for all their deviant candidates. Rapublicans should laud Clinton. He's the poster boy for their current ideology.

[_cinepro]

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.

I wasn't aware that Ford has provided a date. Did I miss that?

Here are the details she offers in her testimony:

One evening that summer, after a day of swimming at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Chevy Chase/Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending.

That's hardly asking where someone was on a certain date 30 years ago.

Sure, everyone else might be lying and they all remember hanging out that summer and getting drunk one night. Or maybe such gatherings were common and so it wasn't memorable. But that's not what they said.

Honestly, I find it especially problematic that Leland (now Keyser), added in a statement through her lawyer: "simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

I'm not going to convict Kavanaugh on "if's" and "maybe's" when any possible corroboration has failed to materialize. Based on what has been presented, it's not the rational thing to do.

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not going to convict Kavanaugh on "if's" and "maybe's" when any possible corroboration has failed to materialize. Based on what has been presented, it's not the rational thing to do.

I wouldn't convict him for the crime of attempted rape based on the available evidence either. However, I don't remember him being on trial.

Here's what we can do: we can listen to two people tell diametrically opposed stories that can't both be true, and decide who is more believable. I don't know that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford, but that is by far the more likely scenario, given the testimony, motivation and circumstances surrounding both parties. To say otherwise is to reveal you're a partisan hack.

[_Maksutov]

I'm not going to convict Kavanaugh on "if's" and "maybe's" when any possible corroboration has failed to materialize. Based on what has been presented, it's not the rational thing to do.

I wouldn't convict him for the crime of attempted rape based on the available evidence either. However, I don't remember him being on trial.

Here's what we can do: we can listen to two people tell diametrically opposed stories that can't both be true, and decide who is more believable. I don't know that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford, but that is by far the more likely scenario, given the testimony, motivation and circumstances surrounding both parties. To say otherwise is to reveal you're a partisan hack.

There was time to do a real investigation. They chose not to. It was never a trial. It didn't have to be. But now the court is more tainted and partisan than anytime in my life time and I'm old.

[_Some Schmo]

But now the court is more tainted and partisan than anytime in my life time and I'm old.

This is one of the true tragedies of the Drumpf stain. The Supreme Court used to be regarded as above politics. Drumpf made sure to bring its reputation down to his basement dwelling level.

I guess it was nice while it lasted.

[_Chap]

I'm not going to convict Kavanaugh on "if's" and "maybe's" when any possible corroboration has failed to materialize. Based on what has been presented, it's not the rational thing to do

No-one tried to convict him: that could only have been done by a criminal court. Had he been before such a court, he would certainly not have been convicted on the evidence presented.

But - he was not before a criminal court, a court which rightly would have demanded the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required before the state takes a citizen's liberty, property or life away.

He was in front of a body charged with deciding whether there was any substantive doubt as to whether he was a proper person to serve on the bench of the Supreme Court. And that demands a much lower evidential standard, which may well have been met in this case.

[May I just say that I am becoming tired of explaining this elementary distinction to posters who should know better? Not just that, but I am beginning to think that some posters understand the distinction very well, but just find it rhetorically convenient to talk as if they didn't. That's simply shameful, if it is the case.]

[_EAllusion]

I wasn't aware that Ford has provided a date. Did I miss that?[

The point of the question is that unremarkable events a long time ago are something you may be apt to forget, while the same time may be remarkable to someone else. I don't think this is a contraversial point and if the story wasn't Kavanaugh I couldn't fathom you using the reasoning you are here. The people she says were at the party not remembering the party doesn't falsify her story. In order for that to be falsifying information you'd have to expect them to remember, but that is not a reasonable expectation. If her story were true, it would be nice if they could corroborate that part, but them failing to do so doesn't provide disconfirmatory weight. I am positive that there were significant moments in your childhood you remember that your parents don't.

I'm not going to convict Kavanaugh on "if's" and "maybe's" when any possible corroboration has failed to materialize. Based on what has been presented, it's not the rational thing to do.

We aren't talking about convicting Kavanaugh. I explicitly mentioned withholding judgement as a live option. What I am criticizing is thinking that Kavanaugh is innocent while also believing that something happened to Ford. That's a wildly implausible view that has been backwards engineered by Republicans out of political necessity rather than a reasonable assessment of facts.

The odds that she was assaulted by someone, but incorrectly believes it was Kavanaugh are incredibly low. Call her a liar, remain undecided, but don't go with that.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

People know it's not a trial, Chap. There just isn't a good and succinct way to explain it without it sounding trite by calling it a 'job interview'. He was on trial. His character, professional conduct, history, and potential were all on trial and he was being judged. It's not inconceivable that people will use terms like 'due process' or 'innocent until proven guilty' to describe what was happening (especially when, in fact, he was investigated).

You keep deliberately attempting to tone down what happened by using the term 'job interview'. I'm fairly certain there is nothing even close for any of us that would approximate what the Supreme Court selection process is, and to call it a 'job interview' is cheap and tawdry.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

[May I just say that I am becoming tired of explaining this elementary distinction to posters who should know better? Not just that, but I am beginning to think that some posters understand the distinction very well, but just find it rhetorically convenient to talk as if they didn't. That's simply shameful, if it is the case.]

and most of us are tired of you promoting the idea that the presumption of innocence is a virtue reserved exclusively for a court room.

[_subgenius]

The Supreme Court used to be regarded as above politics.

When the heck was this?