Vae on 30/9/2018 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Starker
It's not "my opinion", it's the conclusion of the article, which, in great detail, lays out all the reasons why he botched his interview. There are objective facts to support that conclusion.
The conclusion of the article is the opinion of the author...one, which you happen to agree with. Kavanaugh did not objectively "botch the interview"...There's no such thing as that. It's just an
opinion, which some people agree with and some people don't.
You need to stop conflating a fact with an opinion, in order to maintain a rational line of thinking.
Renzatic on 30/9/2018 at 21:46
Quote Posted by Vae
No, her testimony is not credible, because there isn't any substantiated evidence or witnesses to corroborate her allegation. So objectively speaking, it's not credible. That's a
fact...so your statement is false.
Do you know how many cases have been successfully tried just on witness statements? Tons.
See, you're half right about Ford's testimony. I don't believe she's lying, but her witnesses haven't done her any favors. They haven't refuted her claims, merely stated they don't remember. As I've said a thousan times previously, her story may be credible, but there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict were this being tried in court.
But we know that Kavanaugh isn't exactly being utterly truthful in the matter. He's evasive, dodges hard questions, and downplays his previous behavior during the time in question. Various statements have been made by people who had known him during his high school and college days saying that he more of a hardcore drinker than he was letting on. Some have even said he's outright lying.
Now other women have come forward during all this to corroborate Ford's statement with accusations of their own.
Take all these together. Blasey Ford's, Deborah Ramirez's, and Julie Swetnick's accusations, various statements from Kavanaugh's peers during his school days pointing towards his love of hard partying and heavy drinking, Kavanaugh's general evasiveness on the matter. What do you have? A verifiable pattern of behavior that would justify a closer look, one that the FBI could easily build into a case based upon testimony within a week, considering the willingness of everyone involved.
In case I need remind you once again, this isn't a criminal case. The opposition doesn't have to provide evidence pointing towards guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They merely have to present evidence enough to cast doubt upon his testimony.
...and we already have that.
Starker on 30/9/2018 at 21:47
Quote Posted by Vae
The conclusion of the article is the opinion of the author...one, which you happen to agree with. Kavanaugh did not objectively "botch the interview"...There's no such thing as that. It's just an
opinion, which some people agree with and some people don't.
You need to stop conflating a fact with an opinion, in order to maintain a rational line of thinking.
Nobody is conflating facts with opinions here besides you. I quoted an article that laid out the facts and then reached a reasoned conclusion (which you are trying to disparage as "just an opinion").
Vae on 30/9/2018 at 21:51
Quote Posted by Starker
"Credible evidence is not evidence which is necessarily true, but is evidence worthy of belief, that is, worthy to be considered by the jury. It is often natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe."
(
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/credible-evidence/)
Initially, yes...and the "jury" in this case was the Senate Judiciary Committee, which gave her a chance to testify, only to find out that her allegation was unsubstantiated, with no corroboration from any of the witnesses that she named. Because of this, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended Kavanaugh for nomination. The FBI investigation so ordered by Trump is simply a political maneuver, as explained in my previous post.
Starker on 30/9/2018 at 22:03
Under the circumstances, the absence of corroborating witnesses is entirely understandable and doesn't diminish the credibility of her testimony one bit. It's not as if she was suddenly discredited because the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to go ahead with the nomination.
Btw, if it really was all a grand conspiracy, why doesn't she have witnesses to corroborate her story? If she, a highly respected professor could be paid off, why couldn't the deep state shell out a little more money from their apparently limitless coffers for a few witnesses?
Renzatic on 30/9/2018 at 22:05
Quote Posted by Vae
Initially, yes...and the "jury" in this case was the Senate Judiciary Committee, which gave her a chance to testify, only to find out that her allegation was unsubstantiated, with no corroboration from any of the witnesses that she named. Because of this, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended Kavanaugh for nomination. The FBI investigation so ordered by Trump is simply a political maneuver, as explained in my previous post.
You also have to consider that the senate isn't exactly an impartial jury here. The Republicans want Kavanaugh in, the Democrats don't. It's a political race to see who's more justified in their position. On top of that, the White House is (
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061) greatly limiting the scope of the investigation, limiting the FBI from investigating Kavanaugh's drinking history, and constraining it to a select few witnesses, all but preventing them from contacting Swetnick for further corroboration. Despite the claims being made from the Trump administration, this isn't normal.
(
https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-gop-limits-kavanaugh-fbi-probe-experts-react-2018-9) If a case can be made that the White House is purposefully hamstringing the investigation to push Trump's chosen nominee into the Supreme Court, that immediately becomes a conflict of interest, and a direct ethics violation on the part of the executive branch. Expect even more fun times to follow.
nbohr1more on 30/9/2018 at 22:26
Quote Posted by Starker
Under the circumstances, the absence of corroborating witnesses is entirely understandable and doesn't diminish the credibility of her testimony one bit. It's not as if she was suddenly discredited because the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to go ahead with the nomination.
Btw, if it really was all a grand conspiracy, why
doesn't she have witnesses to corroborate her story? If she, a highly respected professor could be paid off, why couldn't the deep state shell out a little more money from their apparently limitless coffers for a few witnesses?
Less loose ends to tie down. The CIA\DOJ is doing this stuff, but the NSA is watching.
The more people you involve, the more data the NSA has to scan for cracks in the facade.
Right now the purpose isn't to get Kav convicted, it's to smear him and the Republicans for the November voting season. All that they need to do is make
the allegations plausible to left and middle leaning Americans then when the Democrats win the elections they can crack down on any divergent narratives
and kill all the whistleblowers like they did during the Obama Administration.
Inline Image:
https://cdn.washingtoncitypaper.com/files/base/scomm/wcp/image/2016/11/960w/FlagShirt_Famous.582cd8e13817d.jpgjkcerda on 30/9/2018 at 23:57
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Once again, let's break this down to what's happening, with all the drama cast aside.
A man is in the running for the Supreme Court.
A woman comes forward to claim he's not fit for the position, that he sexually assaulted her.
Much hooplah is made. Both come forward and offer their statements in front of a senate committee.
The woman's testimony is credible enough to warrant further investigation, which is now happening.
What exactly is beyond the pale here?
The fact she lied....... story changed. Amazing how she flew everywhere. Glad Feinstein is being investigated
Tocky on 1/10/2018 at 00:10
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
Right now the purpose isn't to get Kav convicted, it's to smear him and the Republicans for the November voting season. All that they need to do is make
the allegations plausible to left and middle leaning Americans then when the Democrats win the elections they can crack down on any divergent narratives
and kill all the whistleblowers like they did during the Obama Administration.
What happened was Alex Jones hired a hitman on Seth so he could then blame the Obama Administration during a segment on his show. See? That sound batshit crazy to you? Well guess what? YOU SOUND THAT WAY POSTING THIS UTTER WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE CRAP. The only thing you serve to do is show how nuts the alt right are. Well guess what? WE ALREADY KNEW THAT.
As for the hearing, she answered every question and he evaded half. What some here want us to swallow is that it is just opinion that evading answering is not a sign of guilt. Sure it isn't proof positive, but when placed against the other side who DID answer every question, many of which were unrelated to the actual incident, it will sway a reasonable person into believing the side which DID answer. Crying, threats, changing the subject, general avoidance, are all signs of not being able to answer honestly without incriminating oneself. Not only that but crying is EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION. Recall what Republicans are accusing Democrats of doing? THAT. Straightforward answers EVEN when you don't know exactly denotes honesty. Evasion does not. THAT is a fact. It would be going against reason to think otherwise.
