Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/04/65434590 ... -who-didnt

So who did talk with the feds?

NPR has confirmed the identities of six people whom the FBI interviewed as part of its investigation:

Kavanaugh's high school friends P.J. Smyth, Mark Judge, Tim Gaudette, Chris Garrett
Ford's friend Leland Keyser
A second Kavanaugh accuser, Deborah Ramirez.

Who else might have?

It wasn't immediately clear who the three other people might be. A number of Kavanaugh's former high school or college classmates have come forward to describe his conduct from their youth, including a North Carolina State University professor, Chad Ludington.

But there were no indications on Thursday morning as to whether the FBI might have talked with him or the other former classmates, or with people recommended by other witnesses whose names aren't public.

Anyone got the names of the other folks the FBI interviewed?

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Here's the thing, Schmo. I don't know either Ford nor Kavanaugh and neither is asking to date my daughter. I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter, but I'm also not in the camp that views the results of the investigation as completely without merit. They interviewed the people most likely to have something - anything - that could have added a bit of outside support to the claim. And nothing supportive has been reported to have come from that.

Dude, if I wanted to paint a picture of climate change not happening, I'd only talk to people who support that claim.

Look. If I were ranking the priority of potential witnesses, other than Ford and Kavanaugh, who were most critical to the claim I would put Mark Judge at top followed by Leland Keyser. Judge is claimed to have been in the room and actively involved. Leland was Ford's friend and someone who could at least provide background evidence that confirmed Ford and Kavanaugh met at some point, or something else that at least upholds the other context. Both were interviewed. Both apparently failed to provide any information that the Democrats who saw the report jumped on.

From there I would put the guy that Kavanaugh knew and Ford went out with, nicknamed Squi. And they did. He was someone who could have provided some context or confirm the two had met that summer. Nothing about that has been released to the public. And again, the Democrats who saw the report didn't jump on it but have instead attacked the report as simply not focusing on people who could confirm Kavanaugh drank or blacked out. They seemed to have decided their best play was to try and show he had perjured himself over his claims about drinking.

Again, Schmo, the bar I see here that would have helped is really, really low. All I am pointing out is that we don't have a single bit of corroborating evidence that can add support to Ford's testimony. Not confirm it or indisputably corroborate it. Just supports it. Confirm they met that summer, that when she says she's 100% sure it was Kavanaugh there's reason to accept she knew who he was before it happened, whatever.

It's a really low damned bar I'm asking for, based on simple information the highest priority witnesses should have been able to provide including at least one who was friendly to Ford. Because we don't have that, I think skepticism is not only justified but mandatory. I'd rather they didn't confirm Kavanaugh because he does seem like someone with a slippery relationship with the truth but that's my subjective reaction to him. I am not on board with the idea that the investigation was worthless. And as of now, the evidence works against Ford's testimony sufficiently I can't argue that Kavanaugh likely attempted to assault Ford. I don't damned know and the evidence is beyond less than ideal. I'm sorry that frustrates people. But there ought to be some sense of just how problematic it is that no other witness could confirm her account to the smallest degree.

[_Some Schmo]

Honor, of course healthy skepticism is required, especially if you are going to convict someone of a crime.

We're not talking about that. I'm not claiming that I know he did it, because I certainly don't.

We're talking about a smell test. This is a different kind of judgment. We're talking about a simple do I want to associate with a person like this (being a Supreme Court judge forces him on everyone). It's not throwing him in jail to say, I don't trust this guy. She is more believable. And a partial investigation is not a good look for people trying to remain healthfully skeptical.

[_honorentheos]

I posted this in the other Kavanaugh thread over the weekend, but it's essentially how I'd respond to your comments, Schmo.

My daughter and I were discussing the confirmation on Friday as a result of her being in a high school civics class where the teacher had attempted to present news coverage and the underlying governmental structures for confirming a justice through current events. Yet it was clear that even among high school seniors the entire matter could not be kept separate from people's partisan leanings and they ended up having to preemptively end any discussion about it. My daughter is savvy enough to recognize she is liberal leaning which influences her perspective, and was frustrated telling me about people in her class who represented the more extreme ends of the spectrum who she felt made bad arguments that she couldn't support even if she generally shared their desired outcome of seeing Kavanaugh replaced with a different nominee. She made a comment about how emotional everyone was about it and it led us to talking about emotion as part of how we as humans engage with information to try and determine what is true or not.

I made the point that if our subconscious is the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary success going back to the very first life forms, then we can't dismiss the importance emotion and non-rational though plays in our decision making processes. But we also have to recognize that executive, reasoned thinking that relies on systematic approaches to sorting through evidence to arrive at supported conclusions is what elevates us as a species beyond primal tribal animals into cultured humankind. They both have important roles to play in decision making. Yet in my opinion, this entire process around Kavanaugh's confirmation couldn't be better scripted to fall apart along partisan lines. Emotionally, I think most people who watched Ford's testimony at least initially intuited her as presenting a sincere, truthful account of her own experience. This seems to have been clear from the reactions before Kavanaugh's testimony from such outlets as Fox News and Trump's reported reaction to her. There were certainly exceptions, and people who reacted negatively to her testimony but those seem to be minority views. On the other hand, Kavanaugh's testimony seems to have really divided people in terms of their emotional reaction to it. My personal intuition was he wasn't behaving as someone I'd trust and it raised suspicions in my mind as to his trustworthiness. Yet he also clearly energized other people with his intense, emotional and raw response to the accusations that understandably could be read as someone lashing out at unfair treatment. The challenge then became what evidence was available to use to try and sort things out systematically to try and guard against emotional biases or reframe one's intuited reactions? And the truth is, there isn't much that could be agreed on while the bits and pieces available seemed almost perfectly formed to be used as justification for one's partisan position.

Because we treat our emotional, subconscious truth-filters as reliable - and because the reactions were so deeply felt yet polarizing opposite across the nation - we ended up with the worst possible results. The facts seem to support what we see as obviously so, making those with whom we are now in disagreement villains given they are clearly acting against the evidence in order to enforce a partisan outcome we individually view as contemptible if not outright evil.

But it's all based on our subconscious emotions since the facts aren't available to mitigate effectively and serve as a systematic framework. One couldn't script a more perfect worst case scenario, in my opinion.

[_Some Schmo]

I saw that post and liked it. I appreciate where you're coming from and the message isn't lost on me. We're never going to get to the truth of the matter, so we're only left with speculation. I understand that I am as subject to bias as anyone else who tries to stay vigilant over it.

Since we'll never know, we're left making a judgment. Certainly, the most honest thing to say is, I don't know what really happened. You could try to leave it at that, but there's still going to be a part of you that either believes her or believes him. People trying to have it both ways are kidding themselves. One of them is lying and the other is telling the truth, unless you want to claim he blacked out and can't remember assaulting a girl.

And let me just say, I don't find the secret testimony of his close friends compelling.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Man, Kavanaugh is playing 4-D chess right now. Lol. He just hired all female law clerks according to various news outlets.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I saw that post and liked it. I appreciate where you're coming from and the message isn't lost on me. We're never going to get to the truth of the matter, so we're only left with speculation. I understand that I am as subject to bias as anyone else who tries to stay vigilant over it.

Since we'll never know, we're left making a judgment. Certainly, the most honest thing to say is, I don't know what really happened. You could try to leave it at that, but there's still going to be a part of you that either believes her or believes him. People trying to have it both ways are kidding themselves. One of them is lying and the other is telling the truth, unless you want to claim he blacked out and can't remember assaulting a girl.

And let me just say, I don't find the secret testimony of his close friends compelling.

I hold out hope that the content of the interviews will be made public sooner rather than later. I don't doubt his high school friends have reason to lie or cover for Kavanaugh or effectively pull a Reagan and repeat they can't recall. They probably have sharp lawyers advising them to do exactly that.

But yeah, we have to make a judgment call. My call is one I don't enjoy making but is based on accepting I can't reasonably point to a combination of evidence that I find sufficient to believe Kavanaugh attempted to assault Ford. I think he lied, quite clearly, about his drinking and past behaviors. But whether or not I think he should be a Supreme Court justice isn't the same question as if I think the evidence from the investigation supports calling it a sham or feeling that there was a cover up. They talked to the most important people where the right evidence should have came out. When it became apparently that was where it was heading, I wasn't happy with that. But that's where it seems to have ended up, as of now anyway.

[_Some Schmo]

But yeah, we have to make a judgment call. My call is one I don't enjoy making but is based on accepting I can't reasonably point to a combination of evidence that I find sufficient to believe Kavanaugh attempted to assault Ford.

I can't help but weigh the respective motivations of both witnesses to lie about this incident. If someone is trying to convince me that her motivation to lie was bigger than his, all I can do is laugh. Does she strike you as an attention hound? Does she strike you as partisan? Did she look like a willing tool of the Democrats? Did she look like she was digging the limelight?

What she didn't show was just as important as what she did show. This is all evidence. It's not proof, but it's evidence. You've got to make a reasonable case for questioning her credibility if you're going to accept his.

[_honorentheos]

Yeah, I know. That case right now consists of lacking secondary supporting evidence when it seems reasonable there should have been at least some no matter how slight it was. That doesn't mean I am dismissing her or saying I think she IS lying. But there's a case to be made.

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, I know. That case right now consists of lacking secondary supporting evidence when it seems reasonable there should have been at least some no matter how slight it was. That doesn't mean I am dismissing her or saying I think she IS lying. But there's a case to be made.

So how does that case stack up in light of all the lies we know Kavanaugh told? I mean, we're examining credibility here. Sure, if intent on doing so, you can make a case either way, but which one is stronger based on their testifying habits?

Or put another way, if you were trying to exonerate yourself (because you're presumably innocent), wouldn't you try to be as truthful about the details as possible?