How important is what we did in high school? Kavanaugh accusation

[Guest MormonGator]

@Just_A_Guy-what do you think about the accusers who are dropping their stories about Kavanaugh? Just curious, not trying to argue or score points. 

[NeuroTypical]

Yeesh.  Making false rape accusations is not a small thing.  Pretty evil act, IMO.  It would be nice to see folks from all sides and politics provide some backlash against this stuff.  I hope the false reporters experience some painful and visible consequences.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  We often focus on other commandments, but yes indeed, this is one of the big ten, and now maybe we have a little insight into why.

[Traveler]

Everything we do is important.  The more recent it is the more important it is.  Also the more important we are (or think we are) the more important what we do - is.  I do not understand why it is - but with many the more important they are the less important they think the things the do are.  This disconnection between being important and thinking anything we do is unimportant  is a cleaver way to turn good people into people doing really bad things.

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

@Just_A_Guy-what do you think about the accusers who are dropping their stories about Kavanaugh? Just curious, not trying to argue or score points. 

I think my position all along has not been that the accusers were telling the truth; but merely that a) the major, initial accusations were serious enough that (i) if true, they should be disqualifying and (ii) it was worth taking a couple weeks getting to the bottom of them; and b) given Senate realities (Collins, Murkowski, etc), it behooved the GOP to at least pretend to take this stuff semi-seriously.

I haven’t followed subsequent developments closely, but I don’t think these are any of the principals—I think they are amongst the literally *hundreds* of women who made obviously spurious complaints once the major news broke.  This of course course goes to the point that false accusations *do* happen with some frequency and for purely political purposes; but most of us already knew that.  

[Guest MormonGator]

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think my position all along has not been that the accusers were telling the truth; but merely that a) the major, initial accusations were serious enough that (i) if true, they should be disqualifying and (ii) it was worth taking a couple weeks getting to the bottom of them; and b) given Senate realities (Collins, Murkowski, etc), it behooved the GOP to at least pretend to take this stuff semi-seriously.

I haven’t followed subsequent developments closely, but I don’t think these are any of the principals—I think they are amongst the literally *hundreds* of women who made obviously spurious complaints once the major news broke.  This of course course goes to the point that false accusations *do* happen with some frequency and for purely political purposes; but most of us already knew that.  

It's a moot point now, I guess. He was confirmed.
 

 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's a moot point now, I guess. He was confirmed.
 

Yes and no...  Kavanaugh was confirmed... But there are still a lot of people who are clearly confused by the difference between Being Heard,  Being Believed, and Being Proved.

We can see this in the way various people are trying to re-frame the fact that he got confirmed as sexual assault victims not being Heard.  While that can be a problem that is not what Kavanaugh's case shows.  His main accuser (Ford) got Heard loud and clear.   (probably more so then most accusers get) As for her Believably that is an opinion people form and most people base such on factors that had nothing to do with any kind of facts.  As for being Proven... Her accusation is very serious and requires equally serious proof and that was severely lacking.  Lacking after several FBI background checks... including one focused directly on the accusation. 

[Guest MormonGator]

"It's always interesting when someone never apologizes or admits they were wrong, and it's never a good sign."-Christopher Hitchens. 


Not directed towards anyone here, just how I feel about the confirmation hearings in light of recent evidence. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think my position all along has not been that the accusers were telling the truth; but merely that a) the major, initial accusations were serious enough that (i) if true, they should be disqualifying and (ii) it was worth taking a couple weeks getting to the bottom of them; and b) given Senate realities (Collins, Murkowski, etc), it behooved the GOP to at least pretend to take this stuff semi-seriously.

I haven’t followed subsequent developments closely, but I don’t think these are any of the principals—I think they are amongst the literally *hundreds* of women who made obviously spurious complaints once the major news broke.  This of course course goes to the point that false accusations *do* happen with some frequency and for purely political purposes; but most of us already knew that.  

You are incorrect.

These are women who submitted written accusations/affidavits of sexual assault to the Senate Judiciary Committee and not just "spurious complaints": 

Christine Ford, sexual assault allegations in Georgetown through Diane Feinstein:  refuted by all named witnesses.  Doctors notes refuted.  Fear of flying refuted.  2 front doors refuted.  Polygraph refuted.  Zero evidence.  FBI investigated and found no actionable evidence.  Went radio silent after Kavanaugh confirmation.  Got almost a million dollars from crowdfunding and 7 book deals.

Julie Swetnick, rape train allegations in Georgetown made public through Avenatti's twitter and a subsequent affidavit sent to the Judiciary Committee.  Committee found several potential federal criminal code violations with Swetnick's affidavit and her NBC interview, etc.  The committee submitted Swetnick to the DOJ for prosecution. 

Judy Munro-Leighton, rape allegations of her and her friend in the backseat of a car sent via letter to Kamala Harris that Harris forwarded to the Committee.  Committee investigation found her to be a left-wing activitist and she finally admitted she made the whole thing up.  Committee sent her to DOJ for prosecution.

 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

"It's always interesting when someone never apologizes or admits they were wrong, and it's never a good sign."-Christopher Hitchens.

Considering the source, I can't think of a more hypocritical statement.

BTW, I'm referring to Hitchens, not you, MG.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Considering the source, I can't think of a more hypocritical statement.

BTW, I'm referring to Hitchens, not you, MG.

No worries. I have a bigger ego that he does. I'm prettier too. 

He was exactly right. The worst people I know are those who never apologize or admit they were wrong. 

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

I'm prettier too.

Good thing for you, it doesn't take much.

[Guest MormonGator]

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but atheists can be wonderful people and believers can be scumbags. Hitchens was a man like you or I, he had his flaws for sure. But the reality is that he was brilliant and almost always had something interesting to say. Even if his rabid atheism and disdain for believers got annoying. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but atheists can be wonderful people and believers can be scumbags. Hitchens was a man like you or I, he had his flaws for sure. But the reality is that he was brilliant and almost always had something interesting to say. Even if his rabid atheism and disdain for believers got annoying. 

Yes, I'm sure he was quite intelligent and well informed on a number of subjects.  But I also have seen him in enough Non-debates that became heated simply because he refused to give an inch when his statement had been soundly demolished.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

.  But I also have seen him in enough Non-debates that became heated simply because he refused to give an inch when his statement had been soundly demolished.

We all do that to some degree. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We all do that to some degree. 

Some degree, of course.  And it is much easier to do when we're in the middle of a debate.  When in a debate, one's mindset is supposed to be one sided and only open enough to see what the other side is so as to counter it.

But the instances I'm speaking of are ones where it wasn't even a debate.  They were open conversations regarding very common opinions and positions (on both sides) that we usually have learned to live in peace about.

Regardless, I'm just reluctant to summarily think very highly of him considering his life's work was about destroying that which is of God.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Regardless, I'm just reluctant to summarily think very highly of him considering his life's work was about destroying that which is of God.

I completely understand why you would feel that way. 

I find his life to more sad than anything else. He died believing a lie. Just a tragic figure. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You are incorrect.

These are women who submitted written accusations/affidavits of sexual assault to the Senate Judiciary Committee and not just "spurious complaints": 

Christine Ford, sexual assault allegations in Georgetown through Diane Feinstein:  refuted by all named witnesses.  Doctors notes refuted.  Fear of flying refuted.  2 front doors refuted.  Polygraph refuted.  Zero evidence.  FBI investigated and found no actionable evidence.  Went radio silent after Kavanaugh confirmation.  Got almost a million dollars from crowdfunding and 7 book deals.

Julie Swetnick, rape train allegations in Georgetown made public through Avenatti's twitter and a subsequent affidavit sent to the Judiciary Committee.  Committee found several potential federal criminal code violations with Swetnick's affidavit and her NBC interview, etc.  The committee submitted Swetnick to the DOJ for prosecution. 

Judy Munro-Leighton, rape allegations of her and her friend in the backseat of a car sent via letter to Kamala Harris that Harris forwarded to the Committee.  Committee investigation found her to be a left-wing activitist and she finally admitted she made the whole thing up.  Committee sent her to DOJ for prosecution.

 

Right, I could have phrased that better.  But have any of those three recanted?

Again, my recollection is there was Ford, then Swetnik and a couple of others who got some press (not as much as Ford), and then there was an avalanche of several hundred.  These recent recantation, AFAIK, are not from the first or second tier of accusers.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Right, I could have phrased that better.  But have any of those three recanted?

Again, my recollection is there was Ford, then Swetnik and a couple of others who got some press (not as much as Ford), and then there was an avalanche of several hundred.  These recent recantation, AFAIK, are not from the first or second tier of accusers.

Ford never recanted.

Two of the others did a partial recant.  One said that she couldn't really remember if Kavanaugh was there or not or if it was him or not.  The other eventually said that Kavanaugh was "at the party" but she couldn't remember if he was a participant in the alleged activities.  Color me unimpressed.

The thing about Ford's accusations is not only is there a complete lack of evidence (which often happens in cases such as this).  But there is a lack of evidence where there SHOULD have been evidence.

1. The alleged polygaph -debunked.
2. The witnesses (whom SHE pointed to) refuted her statement.
3. The notes from the therapist refuted her statement.
4. The fact that Kavanaugh was able to reproduce his calendar from that year and showed that despite the apparent completeness of the calendar, there was nothing in the entire year's schedule that would indicate anything like the get-together she alleged.  If this one item isn't as close as one can get to proving a negative, I don't know what is.

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Ford never recanted.

Two of the others did a partial recant.  One said that she couldn't really remember if Kavanaugh was there or not or if it was him or not.  The other eventually said that Kavanaugh was "at the party" but she couldn't remember if he was a participant in the alleged activities.  Color me unimpressed.

The thing about Ford's accusations is not only is there a complete lack of evidence (which often happens in cases such as this).  But there is a lack of evidence where there SHOULD have been evidence.

1. The alleged polygaph -debunked.
2. The witnesses (whom SHE pointed to) refuted her statement.
3. The notes from the therapist refuted her statement.
4. The fact that Kavanaugh was able to reproduce his calendar from that year and showed that despite the apparent completeness of the calendar, there was nothing in the entire year's schedule that would indicate anything like the get-together she alleged.  If this one item isn't as close as one can get to proving a negative, I don't know what is.

Just a couple of questions, as I haven’t followed this closely:

—I understand Ford turned out to have had a history of coaching others through polygraphs; but are you saying the (very cursory) polygraph she claimed to have undergone herself never happened? 

—I wasn’t aware that the therapist notes had been released to anyone; only that Ford & Co said that they existed.  When did this happen? 

—Didn’t one of Kavanaugh’s entries show a party with 2 or 3 of the four people Ford named?

To clarify, I’m still disposed to disbelieve Ford’s conclusions; but I wasn’t aware that these loose ends had been tied up.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—I understand Ford turned out to have had a history of coaching others through polygraphs; but are you saying the (very cursory) polygraph she claimed to have undergone herself never happened? 

No.  I'm saying that if we're talking about a person who is an expert in getting around a polygraph, are we really supposed to take her polygraph seriously?  Perhaps I should have said "nullified" instead of "debunked".  Would that make your legal mind feel better?

Quote

—I wasn’t aware that the therapist notes had been released to anyone; only that Ford & Co said that they existed.  When did this happen? 

They were given to the Washington Post who summarized them with intermittent quoting.  When the therapists notes (Which SHE pointed to as evidence) have something factually incorrect (by her own admission) how dependable are they?  As a lawyer, would that stand up in a court of law?

Quote

—Didn’t one of Kavanaugh’s entries show a party with 2 or 3 of the four people Ford named?

The only thing remotely indicative of this being the alleged evening is that it was a party in that summer with Kavanaugh and some of his friends.  Shocking that high school boys would have a party in the middle of summer.  The similarities end there.

Specifically, it has two other people on his calendar--neither of which was Ford or the other woman (Leland Keyser).  Wrong gathering obviously.  The names on the list were his friends with whom he spent a lot of time.  Is it any wonder that Ford would describe a gathering with some of his known associates?  Hardly conclusive.  In fact, the differences in names is pretty conclusive that it was NOT this gathering. 

She also said that she couldn't remember who the third boy was.  Well, the other man listed on the calendar was one that she remembered and said she dated.  So, she probably would have remembered that person if she knew any of the boys.

She also said that it was right by the Country Club.  Well, the house in question is 10 or 11 miles away from said country club.  Have you ever tried driving around Chevy Chase, MD?  10 miles is not "close" to anything there.

She also said it was a large house.  That home was a small townhome.

Funny how Dems scoffed at his calendar as being undependable.  No one even brought it up until the hearing where the special counsel asked about it.  Then everyone took up the mantle that THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN!!!  In a couple of weeks they'll go back to saying,"Well, it wasn't dependable anyway."

If needed, the FBI need only talk to these other two men to get their testimony about said gathering.  But is the left pressing the FBI to do that? No.  They're only interested in the perception or appearance of evil by the skin of its teeth.  They don't dare talk about verifiable facts.

Quote

To clarify, I’m still disposed to disbelieve Ford’s conclusions; but I wasn’t aware that these loose ends had been tied up.

There's no such thing as tying up anything when people are already predisposed to believe anything or when they have an agenda.  But it all seems pretty dang obvious to me.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just a couple of questions, as I haven’t followed this closely:

—I understand Ford turned out to have had a history of coaching others through polygraphs; but are you saying the (very cursory) polygraph she claimed to have undergone herself never happened? 

—I wasn’t aware that the therapist notes had been released to anyone; only that Ford & Co said that they existed.  When did this happen? 

—Didn’t one of Kavanaugh’s entries show a party with 2 or 3 of the four people Ford named?

To clarify, I’m still disposed to disbelieve Ford’s conclusions; but I wasn’t aware that these loose ends had been tied up.

In addition to what @Carborendum stated:

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just a couple of questions, as I haven’t followed this closely:

—I understand Ford turned out to have had a history of coaching others through polygraphs; but are you saying the (very cursory) polygraph she claimed to have undergone herself never happened? 

Ford perjured herself when she was directly asked if she has coached somebody on how to pass a polygraph and she answered No.  Besides that, she did have a polygraph to which there were only 2 questions asked.  But, at the hearing, she stated that it took a long time.  Also, she stated that she was crying the whole time (renders polygraphs invalid).  Also, she "couldn't remember" who paid for the polygraph.  And, she FLEW to take he polygraph which was taken close to the airport so she took the polygraph right after flying.  She stated that the reason for her not able to attend the congressional hearing was because she is afraid of flying.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—I wasn’t aware that the therapist notes had been released to anyone; only that Ford & Co said that they existed.  When did this happen? 

Ford's lawyers refused to release the notes to the Committee stating that they will release it only if an FBI investigation is made.  Well, the FBI investigated and still no notes because they said they will only release it if the FBI interviews Ford (delay tactic in my opinion, but that's just me).  The FBI did not deem it necessary to interview Ford as they used her Congressional hearing for their investigation into Kavanaugh and it was enough to put holes into the allegation.  So the notes were never sent to the FBI.  Instead, her lawyers released the notes to the Washington Post and WaPo published it... only to find out that the details WaPo stated were on the notes contradicted Ford's testimony at the Congressional hearing.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—Didn’t one of Kavanaugh’s entries show a party with 2 or 3 of the four people Ford named?

Besides the 2 people that were at the party who were Kavanaugh's closest friends (and not Ford nor Leyland) nothing else matches so it didn't pass as evidence.

Somebody who lives close to the country club actually came out on the interwebs saying that there's this house close to the country club that matches Ford's description of the house, the position of the staircase, the upstairs bathroom, etc., and the kid who lived there having the same general features as Kavanaugh.  She got threatened by the feminist activists so she went dark.  Anyway, this never made it into the investigation as both the Committee and the FBI investigations were focused on Kavanaugh and not some Kavanaugh-look-alike.

 

[anatess2]

@Just_A_Guy  and to those interested in the full Judiciary Committee Report on the investigation into Kavanaugh's sexual allegations:

Here's some light reading for you... it's only 414 pages .   It has ALL the principals and the findings and conclusion to each of their cases.   The first 28 pages is the meat of the report.  The rest are supporting documents.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02 Kavanaugh Report.pdf

Christine Ford's investigation summary is the first 14 pages. 

Conclusions:  Committee investigators found no verifiable evidence that supported Dr. Ford’s allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. The witnesses that Dr. Ford identified as individuals who could corroborate her allegations failed to do so, and in fact, contradicted her.

Deborah Ramirez's is 14-17.

Conclusions:  Committee investigators found no verifiable evidence to support Ramirez’s allegations.

Julie Swetnick's is 17-23

Conclusions: The Committee found no verifiable evidence to support Swetnick’s allegations. Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation. Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, § 1001, and § 1505 on October 25, 2018. In addition, on October 26, 2018, the Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant.

Redacted's Rhode Island boat rape allegation:  23-24

Conclusions: The Committee found no verifiable evidence to support the allegations.  Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that <redacted> provided false information. Accordingly, on September 29, 2018, the Committee referred <redacted> to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation).

Anonymous allegation in Colorado:  25-26

Conclusions: The Committee found no evidence to support the allegations in the anonymous Colorado letter. The alleged victim of the incident—the woman Justice Kavanaugh was dating when he authored parts of the Starr Report—denied the event ever took place. Justice Kavanaugh similarly denied engaging in the alleged conduct. The letter is anonymous, and the Committee has no way to identify the sender for further investigation. The Committee found no verifiable evidence to support the allegations.

Judy Munro-Leighton:  26-27

Conclusions:  The Committee found no credible evidence to support the allegations in the Jane Doe letter. Justice Kavanaugh denied engaging in the alleged conduct. The letter is anonymous, and the Committee has no way to identify the sender for further investigation. Although Judy MunroLeighton emailed several Senate offices to claim responsibility for the letter, she later admitted that she was not the author of it and merely used it as a “ploy” to “get attention” and had never met Justice Kavanaugh.

(from page 28):  On November 2, 2018, the Committee referred Judy Munro-Leighton to the Justice Department for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation).

 

MAKE THE DEMOCRATS PAY FOR THIS JUDICIAL FARCE!

[anatess2]

And the Democrats paid dearly for it.

All of the Senators in "toss-up" states who voted against Kavanaugh lost their re-election bid yesterday.  And that includes the Senators President Obama himself campaigned for.

Edited November 7, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And the Democrats paid dearly for it.

All of the Senators who voted against Kavanaugh lost their re-election bid yesterday.  And that includes the Senators President Obama himself campaigned for.

Who?  We didn't gain any seats.  How?

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Who?  We didn't gain any seats.  How?

Claire WhatsherFace in Missouri went down, and it looks like Bill Nelson in Florida did.