Mormon Women's Group Call on LDS Senators to Investigate Allegations Against Kavanaugh

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're confusing "do not recall" with "I wasn't there".

So no corroborating witnesses then?

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

The only witnesses to the crime are the would-be rapists and Dr Ford. There are however four witnesses that corroborate that Dr. Ford's claims are made in good faith.

Dr. Ford made a very credible and sincere showing. Kavanaugh's body language, on the other hand, shows that he's hiding something. No one with any discernment would believe Kavanaugh over Ford, after having seen them speak. We already know that Kavanaugh is willing to lie under oath. We know that he hid things from his wife. Kavanaugh has a credibility problem.

So now we need the gift of discernment to see the truth?

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The only witnesses to the crime are the would-be rapists and Dr Ford. There are however four witnesses that corroborate that Dr. Ford's claims are made in good faith.

Means nothing.  Kavanaugh has a good number of women who have said the same on his behalf.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Means nothing.  Kavanaugh has a good number of women who have said the same on his behalf.

Many of whom have recanted.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So now we need the gift of discernment to see the truth?

Maybe just good judgement.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So no corroborating witnesses then?

Not of the event in question. We just have Dr. Ford's very impressive and credible testimony under oath. Court cases are frequently decided with that level of evidence. This isn't a court case though, even though the GOP tried to turn it into a prosecution of the victim. This is a job interview. The accusations are credible. Kavanaugh is not. He needs to withdraw for the good of the nation.

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, randy said:

Are you suggesting the good female friend that Dr. Ford identified...and that has denied any knowledge of the incident...that she is a perpetrator?

She never said her friend witnessed the attempted rape, contrary to your assertion. The perpetrators are the only other witnesses to the attempted rape.

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not of the event in question. We just have Dr. Ford's very impressive and credible testimony under oath. Court cases are frequently decided with that level of evidence.

No they’re not.

 

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

This isn't a court case though, even though the GOP tried to turn it into a prosecution of the victim. This is a job interview. The accusations are credible. Kavanaugh is not. He needs to withdraw for the good of the nation.

Right.  So what happens if he withdraws?  Are they going to follow up with a trial do you think?  If these allegations are credible, should there be criminal charges filed? Especially if allegations #2 and #3 are true?

Edited September 27, 2018 by SteveO

[randy]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Get ready man. I am about to blow your mind.

There are people who stay in actual romantic relationships with people who have sexually assaulted them.

I know, messed up huh? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that it regularly happens. By comparison saying hi seems kind of tame.

Not mind blowing at all.  I'm aware of those behaviors.  I don't think Dr. Ford has ever characterized her relationships with either Judge Kavanaugh nor Mark Judge as being romantic in nature. If either of them were romantic in nature  perhaps I would find that scenario more plausible.    I just found it odd that she initiated it.   Just odd....no more or less than that.

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not of the event in question. We just have Dr. Ford's very impressive and credible testimony under oath. Court cases are frequently decided with that level of evidence. This isn't a court case though, even though the GOP tried to turn it into a prosecution of the victim. This is a job interview. The accusations are credible. Kavanaugh is not. He needs to withdraw for the good of the nation.

I didn't watch the proceedings but one who did says this:

We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Date/who paid for her polygraph
- Grandmother's funeral date?

But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) September 27, 2018 

Do you think she could be misremembering the alleged assault?

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I didn't watch the proceedings but one who did says this:

We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Date/who paid for her polygraph
- Grandmother's funeral date?
 

A couple of corrections (I'm listening to the proceedings) or clarifications from what I remember:

- Ford knows the approximate date (which year and summer it took place)..

- She has named people who were at the party, but cannot name all of the others who were there.

- She knows it was either Kavanaugh or Judge who pushed her into the room (or both together possibly), but was very careful to say they were behind her and she didn't (or couldn't) see which one did the pushing.  But she knows it was the two of them behind her, she was pushed, and the two of them followed her into the room and shut the door behind them.

- The attorneys paid for the polygraph (that was stated).

- The funeral part wasn't any big deal (IMO).....she was willing to find the exact date, but just knew she took the polygraph test around the time of her grandmother's funeral (thinks it was the day afterwards).

She is being very precise and careful with her answers.  I find her extremely credible.  I'm anxious to see how Kavanaugh does.

Edited September 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

A couple of corrections (I'm listening to the proceedings) or clarifications from what I remember:

- Ford knows the approximate date (which year and summer it took place)..

- She has named people who were at the party, but cannot name all of the others who were there.

- She knows it was either Kavanaugh or Judge who pushed her into the room (or both together possibly), but was very careful to say they were behind her and didn't see which one did the pushing.  But she knows it was the two of them behind her, she was pushed, and the two of them followed her into the room and shut the door behind them.

- The attorneys paid for the polygraph (that was stated).

- The funeral part wasn't any big deal (IMO).....she was willing to find the exact date, but just knew she took the polygraph test around the time of her grandmother's funeral (thinks it was the day afterwards).

She is being very precise and careful with her answers.  I find her extremely credible.  I'm anxious to see how Kavanaugh does.

Good to know.  I am sure the facts will be argued over ad nauseam over the weekend.  It looks like the democrats will get their wish and delay the vote to perhaps after the mid-terms.  October is obviously a big month for campaigns and the vote won't happen then.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is why society is getting sick and tired of people trying to shame/coerce them into uncritically and credulously accepting facially dubious claims of sexual assault, solely on the basis of some sort of unearned and privileged assumption that women must always be believed, no matter what, and that their claims are immune to scrutiny and reasoned evaluation.  You realize this right?

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Mayella Ewell?

Thanks,

-Smac

Excuse me? It’s one thing to state that a claim is unsubstantiated. It’s one thing to state we should withhold judgment. It’s one thing to state that sometimes things are made up. You did exactly zero of these things. What you did was mock the woman who brought things to light. You stipulated that assuming what she said was true (in other words not made up) she was a monster. Maybe those two approaches look the same to you, but they are starkly different from where I stand. 

And yes I love the book to kill a mockingbird. 

[randy]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

A couple of corrections (I'm listening to the proceedings) or clarifications from what I remember:

- Ford knows the approximate date (which year and summer it took place)..

- She has named people who were at the party, but cannot name all of the others who were there.

- She knows it was either Kavanaugh or Judge who pushed her into the room (or both together possibly), but was very careful to say they were behind her and didn't see which one did the pushing.  But she knows it was the two of them behind her, she was pushed, and the two of them followed her into the room and shut the door behind them.

- The attorneys paid for the polygraph (that was stated).

- The funeral part wasn't any big deal (IMO).....she was willing to find the exact date, but just knew she took the polygraph test around the time of her grandmother's funeral (thinks it was the day afterwards).

She is being very precise and careful with her answers.  I find her extremely credible.  I'm anxious to see how Kavanaugh does.

I also found her to be sincere and credible in the sense that she truly believes something happened that day.  But again, as has been stated many times...she provided exactly zero corroborating evidence to support her allegation. All the Dems did was to use their time to pontificate...few questions were actually posed to her from the left.  As to the Repubs tactic of allowing the Prosecutor to ask their questions was at best a draw. She didn't do damage, but she wasn't able to substantively cast any doubt as to her motives etc.  I would score this first half as 3-0 in favor of the Dems.

I look forward to the second half.

 

[smac97]

“She’s avoiding anything that would get her on perjury. She’s only certain on matters which cannot be proved one way or another.”

Yeah, that's the vibe I'm getting.

"If she says it, it must be true" just doesn't work for me. 

Not 35 years after the fact. 

Not when the statements are so calculated to be vague on testable/falsifiable details. 

Not when it arises after six background investigations by the FBI, none of which caught even a whiff of her claims.  

Not when her testimony is long on emotion and sparse on facts.

Not when she claims that she told her therapist, but refuses to turn over her therapist's notes (but she does admit that Kavanaugh's name isn't in them).

I thought this observation was salient: "We are witnessing a crisis of objective truth today. This is what happens when feelings and emotions become the standard of judgment. It’s a rejection of reality and when you don’t live in reality you can be manipulated by anyone with an agenda."

Yep.

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

This is why society is getting sick and tired of people trying to shame/coerce them into uncritically and credulously accepting facially dubious claims of sexual assault, solely on the basis of some sort of unearned and privileged assumption that women must always be believed, no matter what, and that their claims are immune to scrutiny and reasoned evaluation.  You realize this right?

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Mayella Ewell?

Thanks,

-Smac

Excuse me?

Gladly!

Quote

It’s one thing to state that a claim is unsubstantiated.

Yes.

Quote

It’s one thing to state we should withhold judgment.

Well, sorta.  The claim has been made public.  We are all entitled to form our own opinions and conclusions.

Quote

It’s one thing to state that sometimes things are made up.

Yes.  Skepticism and incredulity were the substance of the Tweet I posted.  Here it is again:

Either she is lying (in which case her credibility and honesty take a major hit), or else she was telling the truth (and she, while in college, regularly and voluntarily attended high school parties where gang rapes were a regular occurrence, but she essentially "shrugged and kept on partying").  Either way, her credibility is poor.

Quote

You did exactly zero of these things.

Actually, I did a number of these things.

Quote

What you did was mock the woman who brought things to light.

Malarky.  I questioned her credibility.  And for that I got a fairly standard "How dare you question the word of a woman!" from you.

It just doesn't work.  Women want to be put on equal footing with men, right?  I agree with that sentiment.  So I'll treat her claims the same way I would treat anyone else's.  No deference to her because of her gender.  None.  Zip.  Nada.

Quote

You stipulated that assuming what she said was true (in other words not made up) she was a monster. 

Pretty much, yes.

Quote

Maybe those two approaches look the same to you, but they are starkly different from where I stand. 

She's characterizing herself as a college kid who regularly attended high school parties, as someone who regularly watched gang rapes in action, and yet who nevertheless continued to party on and continue regularly attending these rapefests.  And then she never told anyone for 35 or so years, and waited until the 59th minute of the Eleventh Hour to inject an affidavit (that is largely bereft of substance) into a hugely partisan nomination process that has been underway for months.  And she's using a partisan anti-Trump lawyer (who has political ambitions of his own).

Personally, I don't think she's a monster.  I think she's a liar who is letting herself be manipulated by others for ulterior purposes.

Like Mayella Ewell.

Quote

And yes I love the book to kill a mockingbird. 

Good.  Then you'll understand the allusion to Kavanaugh being in the same situation as Tom Robinson.  Society privileged the word of Mayella Ewell over Mr. Robinson's not because the allegations against him were substantively true or verifiable, but because he was black and because Mayella Ewell was white.  Her allegation alone was sufficient to indict Tom Robinson.  

We are seeing a similar railroading of Brett Kavanaugh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2018 by smac97

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

Right.  So what happens if he withdraws?  Are they going to follow up with a trial do you think?  If these allegations are credible, should there be criminal charges filed? Especially if allegations #2 and #3 are true?

If he withdraws, then mission accomplished and 99.999% of the people aren't going to care anymore. 

I suspect there is a statute of limitations that would prevent any other action from being taken, not to mention I doubt there is anything that would actually convince a jury to convict (if they could even get a prosecutor to take the case).

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If he withdraws, then mission accomplished and 99.999% of the people aren't going to care anymore. 

I suspect there is a statute of limitations that would prevent any other action from being taken, not to mention I doubt there is anything that would actually convince a jury to convict (if they could even get a prosecutor to take the case).

Exactly.  Thank you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Malarky.  I questioned her credibility. 

The only post I responded to was the tweet above. I guess, I don't see that as questioning her credibility. I see it as incredibly condescending and mocking. The best case for Mr. Schilichter (and apparently you) is that she is a monster. I wonder what the worst case is? Do you have any background in psychology?  

Quote

And for that I got a fairly standard "How dare you question the word of a woman!" from you.

Formal CFR (or retraction) please.

Quote

It just doesn't work.  Women want to be put on equal footing with men, right?  I agree with that sentiment.  So I'll treat her claims the same way I would treat anyone else's.  No deference to her because of her gender.  None.  Zip.  Nada.

So you think the best way to treat someone who is coming forward at great personal cost is to mock them and call them at best a monster. You think this is the equivalent of questioning their credibility. Got it. What ever works for you. It must be nice to be you!

Edited September 27, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The only post I responded to was the tweet above. I guess, I don't see that as questioning her credibility.

Her claims are problematic on their face.  Hence the "best case" reference.

I don't think Schlichter thinks she is a monster, either.  That's the point of his tweet.

Quote

I see it as incredibly condescending and mocking.

Shrug.

If you are demanding some sort of "kid glove" treatment of Ms. Swetnick, solely because she is a woman and Brett Kavanaugh is a man, I will not go along with that.

Again, I think society is getting tired of the "How dare you" schtick.  Women want to be on equal footing with men?  Great!  I agree!  So you can dispense with the guilt-mongering effort to put her claims above scrutiny or criticism.  It just doesn't work.  She put her claims out there for public consumption.  She doesn't get to say "Here are my claims, but don't you dare voice any skepticism about them, 'cuz 'this is why people do not report or talk about these things.'"

Quote

The best case for Mr. Schilichter (and apparently you) is that she is a monster.

No.  Not a monster.  A liar.  A partisan liar.  That's my conclusion.

Quote

I wonder what the worst case is? Do you have any background in psychology? I see that as calling her a monster and mocking her. 

I see calling her a "monster" as a rhetorical / oblique / backhanded point about the credibility of her claims.  That is to say, her claims are very suspect.  We must choose between her being a "monster" or a liar.

I conclude the latter.

Quote

Formal CFR (or retraction) please.

Huh?  What "reference" are you asking about?

Quote

So you think the best way to treat someone who is coming forward at great personal cost is to mock them and call them at best a monster.

Again, this guilt-mongering "How dare you!" schtick just doesn't work anymore.  She has made public claims.  Those claims are open for scrutiny and analysis.  She doesn't get to avoid that scrutiny by hiding behind her gender.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought this observation was salient: "We are witnessing a crisis of objective truth today. This is what happens when feelings and emotions become the standard of judgment. It’s a rejection of reality and when you don’t live in reality you can be manipulated by anyone with an agenda."

To paraphrase what was said to the outlaw Josie Wales, "there's iron in these words."  Feelings and emotions should never be the standard of judgment.

[Durangout]

56 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I didn't watch the proceedings but one who did says this:

We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
- Time/date/location of party
- Who drove her to party
- Who was at party
- Who pushed her into room
- Who drove her from party
- Date/who paid for her polygraph
- Grandmother's funeral date?

But "100% sure" it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) September 27, 2018 

Do you think she could be misremembering the alleged assault?

that's just a fraction of the issues w her claims.  she very little credibility.  I think she MAY have been assulted by someone but not Kavanaugh.  I would gues she has some pretty significant issues ( she required counceling over installing  door in their house???)  this lays out nicely some

issues w her story:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/amp/

 

 

 

[Duncan]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a mention of a "group of Mormon women" in the proceedings? 

[ALarson]

I'm listening to Kavanaugh give his statement and all I can say is....."Wow!"   He's impressive, convincing and it's been very moving.  Watching his wife and Mother as he speaks is extremely touching as well.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Not of the event in question. We just have Dr. Ford's very impressive and credible testimony under oath. Court cases are frequently decided with that level of evidence. This isn't a court case though, even though the GOP tried to turn it into a prosecution of the victim. This is a job interview. The accusations are credible. Kavanaugh is not. He needs to withdraw for the good of the nation.

You haven’t even heard his side yet.  I am listening now.  Pretty convincing! 

Edited September 27, 2018 by pogi