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

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

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

Yes.  I think it was Booker who mentioned this group, I think.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Yep.  His comments about his review of his 1982 diary/calendar are very interesting.

He is angry, that is clear.  But he is keeping his emotions in check and is stepping through the pieces of evidence ("First..."  "Second..." and so on).  This is a profoundly lawyer/judgy thing to do.  It's called "marshaling evidence."  And he seems to be doing a very good job.

He admits to drinking beers with friends, sometimes too many, but never to point of blacking out or sexually assaulting anyone.  The drinking age was 18 at the time.

Presuming guilt based on drinking beer puts us in "an ugly new place," he said.

He denies having had any sexual experience in high school.  He was "inwardly proud" of it.  It was a matter of faith and respect and caution for him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  His comments about his review of his 1982 diary/calendar are very interesting.

He is angry, that is clear.  But he is keeping his emotions in check and is stepping through the pieces of evidence ("First..."  "Second..." and so on).  This is a profoundly lawyer/judgy thing to do.  It's called "marshaling evidence."  And he seems to be doing a very good job.

He admits to drinking beers with friends, sometimes too many, but never to point of blacking out or sexually assaulting anyone.  The drinking age was 18 at the time.

Presuming guilt based on drinking beer puts us in "an ugly new place," he said.

He denies having had any sexual experience in high school.  He was "inwardly proud" of it.  It was a matter of faith and respect and caution for him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

One of the deplorable events of this sorry episode is that some have reviled Kavanaugh for expressing that he remained a virgin throughout his youth. We are in a bad state if youthful chastity has now become an occasion for ridicule. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

“I love teaching law. But thanks to what some of you on this side of the committee have unleashed, I may never be able to teach again.”

Powerful! 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

 

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Formal CFR (or retraction) please.

Quote

Huh?  What "reference" are you asking about?

I would like a formal reference for the place where I said anything like how dare you question the word of a woman. Hint: I did no such thing.

What I did do, was point out that it is standard protocol (and has always been standard protocol) to mock, demean, or otherwise disparage those that report sexual harassment. That you are participating in the mocking. That said mocking highly discourages anyone from coming forward. I did not respond to any statement in this now long thread that merely questioned the veracity of the woman's statement. I did not say that such questioning was unreasonable. By it's very nature, crimes of sexual harassment and sexual assault are he said she said affairs. You mocked someone who came forward to relate events that (might have) happened. Was the reporter of this event (if true) guiltless? Absolutely not. Would her silence be understandable based on what we know about human psychology? Yes. Does mocking her make it more or less likely that future victims come forward? Does mocking her make it easier or harder for sexual predators to get away with crimes? 

Does not mocking her mean that we can't question her? No. Does not mocking her mean that we must believe her 100% absolutely not. Not mocking her simply means that we treat her the same way we'd want our daughter / sister / mother / friend treated in a situation like this. We respect and dignity. By mocking her, you are part of the problem that allows sexual harassment and assault to continue. 

Edited September 27, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MorningStar]

I've read lots of comments about this, but am listening to the hearings (missing some bits and pieces because of my toddler). Most of my friends have been outraged by Kavanaugh and seem to think it's a fact that he assaulted Ford. I listened to Ford this morning and am now listening to Kavanaugh. 

Thoughts on Ford:

She's inconsistent. She didn't want to fly to Washington because she's afraid of flying. Oh, but she does fly anyway and it's easier for her to fly when it's for vacation. My mom and my mother-in-law are both afraid of flying and won't do it period. Turns out they offered to come to her and somehow she didn't understand they had offered to come to her. I'm confused about all of that. 

How could she not know if she paid for the lie detector when it wasn't that long ago? And why would she do that on the day of her grandma's funeral - oh wait. Maybe it wasn't on the day of her grandma's funeral, but the next day. Her hippocampus didn't manage to retain that one, but we're supposed to believe her recollections from 35 years ago. 

Crying one minute and then giggling. "I'm going to need caffeine when I'm done." To help with your nervousness? Caffeine? 

The part of her assault that stands out the most is the boys' laughter rather than the part where she thought he might suffocate her to death. 

Thoughts on Kavanaugh:

He's crying real tears and seems genuinely outraged. He and the women behind him (relatives I'm assuming) are bringing tears to my eyes. He has kept a calendar/journal for many years and actually documented the summer of 1982 (was hardly home on the weekends at all). Ford's female friend at the alleged party testified that she never met Kavanaugh. 

He explains that he went to a Catholic school and hung out with kids from x, y, and z schools, but not with kids who went to Ford's school, but says it's possible they may have met at some point. 

Continuing to listen. I'm supposed to be shopping and making a birthday dessert. Whatever the truth is, someone has been very wronged.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I would like a formal reference for the place where I said anything like how dare you question the word of a woman. Hint: I did no such thing.

This is the comment from you that I had in mind.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What I did do, was point out that it is standard protocol (and has always been standard protocol) to mock, demean, or otherwise disparage those that report sexual harassment.

"Standard protocol" = "How dare you!"-style histrionics.

These just don't work.  She doesn't get to make explosive - and entirely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated - public allegations, and then hide behind her gender or a claimed status of being a victim. 

Women are being put on equal footing with men now, and that is good, but it means that their say-so doesn't get to be privileged and put above scrutiny simply because she is a woman making a claim of sexual assault against a man.  The presumption of innocence still holds.  

As for her being a "victim," that presupposes that which is very much in dispute, does it not?

I am not mocking her.  I am saying she is has set herself up as either a liar or a "monster."  I think she's the former.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That you are participating in the mocking.

And you are participating in board-nannying in an attempt to stifle scrutiny of facially dubious allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.  Because the person making the allegations is a woman, and because she is making allegations of sexual assault against a man.

Like Mayella Ewell.

It doesn't work.  Mayella's facially dubious claims against Tom should not have have been privileged because she was white and he was black.  And Ms. Swetnick's facially dubious claims against Brett Kavanaugh should not be privileged because she is female and he is male.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That said mocking highly discourages anyone from coming forward.

Meh.  Her claims are facially dubious.  I am acknowledging that, not mocking it.

It's a serious issue.  Mockery isn't appropriate.  But then, neither are attempts to squelch reasonable critiques by putting Ms. Swetnick above scrutiny and by disregarding the presumption of innocence - as you are doing here.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I did not respond to any statement in this now long thread that merely questioned the veracity of the woman's statement. I did not say that such questioning was unreasonable. By it's very nature, crimes of sexual harassment and sexual assault are he said she said affairs.

Well, no.  Her allegations involve factual statements (times, places, events, persons, etc.) that could and should be testable.  And yet...

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You mocked someone who came forward to relate events that (might have) happened.

No, I didn't.  Quit board nannying.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was the reporter of this event (if true) guiltless? Absolutely not. Would her silence be understandable based on what we know about human psychology? Yes. Does mocking her make it more or less likely that future victims come forward? Does mocking her make it easier or harder for sexual predators to get away with crimes? 

Are you attempting to privilege her say-so simply because she is a woman making allegations of sexual abuse?  Yes.

Should her say-so be privileged or otherwise immune from scrutiny and critique because she is a woman?  No.

Should her say so be privileged or otherwise immune from scrutiny and critique because she is making allegations of sexual abuse?  No.

Again, I am not mocking her.  I am publicly declaring that I don't believe the substance of her claims.  They are facially dubious, and were presented under hyper-partisan and deeply suspect circumstances.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Does not mocking her mean that we can't question her? No. Does not mocking her mean that we must believe her 100% absolutely not. Not mocking her simply means that we treat her the same way we'd want our daughter / sister / mother / friend treated in a situation like this. We respect and dignity. By mocking her, you are part of the problem that allows sexual harassment and assault to continue. 

Malarky.  You are trying to privilege her say-so because she is a woman making allegations of sexual abuse.  It just won't work.

I am not mocking her.  I am saying that I do not think she is telling the truth.  That her affidavit is substantively a lie.  

That's not mockery.  That's a very serious assessment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

I believe Ford was sexually assaulted and I do not believe she's lying.  I also think she's convinced it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her.

But, I believe she's got the wrong guy.  After listening to Kavanaugh (and I am going to continue listening), I firmly believe he did not assault her and has been falsely accused.  My heart goes out to him and his family for what they are going through.  Very gut wrenching to watch and also very touching.

So, my observation is that they are both telling the truth.....but that she is mistaken regarding what she remembers and believes.

ETA:

One more thing....

I do not believe Ford was politically motivated here.....BUT.....I firmly believe that Feinstein held onto this and has definitely used it for politically motivated reasons.

Edited September 27, 2018 by ALarson

[cinepro]

50 minutes ago, pogi said:

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

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Ford's testimony changed no one's mind today, and Kavanaugh's testimony won't change anyone's mind either.

 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Ford's testimony changed no one's mind today, and Kavanaugh's testimony won't change anyone's mind either.

I agree.

I also agree with Alarson's assessment of Dr. Ford.  

I am fairly irritated at Senator Feinstein.  If there is a bad actor here, surely it is her.  Confirmation hearings are necessarily contentious and partisan and stressful, I get that.  But Senator Feinstein hid Dr. Ford's letter, then presented it to the committee at the 11th hour and leaked it to the press.

-Smac

Edited September 27, 2018 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is the comment from you that I had in mind.

I say nothing to the effect of "how dare you question the word of a woman". Substantiate or retract. You mention board nannying below, well on this I will board nanny. I never said or implied anything to the effect of don't question women. What you read into my comment is your problem. Again CFR.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Standard protocol" = "How dare you!"-style histrionics.

Nope, just what happens. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These just don't work.  She doesn't get to make explosive - and entirely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated - public allegations, and then hide behind her gender or a claimed status of being a victim. 

I completely agree.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Women are being put on equal footing with men now, and that is good, but it means that their say-so doesn't get to be privileged and put above scrutiny simply because she is a woman making a claim of sexual assault against a man.  The presumption of innocence still holds.  

The law has a presumption of innocence. I'm not sure that it applies anywhere else.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As for her being a "victim," that presupposes that which is very much in dispute, does it not?

If I called her a victim, it was a mistake. I should have said potential victim. Sorry.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not mocking her.  I am saying she is has set herself up as either a liar or a "monster."  I think she's the former.

The post is mocking her. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mock. Your post absolutely treats her with contempt and ridicule.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And you are participating in board-nannying in an attempt to stifle scrutiny of facially dubious allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. 

I am doing no such thing. I have no strong opinion on whether Brett Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent. My personal best guess is that Ford and these other women are describing real events that happened (more or less) but may not have the correct person. I think that they are acting in good faith. I think that the republicans and democrats are both not acting in good faith in this matter but are acting like partisans (as expected).

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because the person making the allegations is a woman, and because she is making allegations of sexual assault against a man.

No. Because mocking victims (and potential victims) makes it less likely for future victims to come forward.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Like Mayella Ewell.

Nope.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It doesn't work.  Mayella's facially dubious claims against Tom should not have have been privileged because she was white and he was black.  And Ms. Swetnick's facially dubious claims against Brett Kavanaugh should not be privileged because she is female and he is male.

I absolutely agree with this statement.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  Her claims are facially dubious.  I am acknowledging that, not mocking it.

To say they are dubious represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the human nature and the nature of memory. The fact that she went to these parties after witnessing horrible events, is not surprising. The fact that she didn't report isn't surprising. The fact that she is identifying the wrong person (on accident) would also not be surprising to me.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a serious issue.  Mockery isn't appropriate.  But then, neither are attempts to squelch reasonable critiques by putting Ms. Swetnick above scrutiny and by disregarding the presumption of innocence - as you are doing here.

I have done no such thing. There have been many posts questioning Ms Swetnick's reliability that I did not take issue with. Your post crossed a line. It mocked her to get a laugh, because best case scenario for her, is she is a monster right? Ha ha ha.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Her allegations involve factual statements (times, places, events, persons, etc.) that could and should be testable.  And yet...

After 35 years, I doubt anything is actually testable.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I didn't.  Quit board nannying.

I most certainly am not. You can mock all you want. Mocking has consequences and I am merely pointing that out to you. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you attempting to privilege her say-so simply because she is a woman making allegations of sexual abuse?  Yes.

Absolutely not. I think there are many problematic aspects of her statement.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Should her say-so be privileged or otherwise immune from scrutiny and critique because she is a woman?  No.

100 percent agree.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Should her say so be privileged or otherwise immune from scrutiny and critique because she is making allegations of sexual abuse?  No.

Absolutely agree.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not mocking her.  I am publicly declaring that I don't believe the substance of her claims.  They are facially dubious, and were presented under hyper-partisan and deeply suspect circumstances.

The tweet you copied was absolutely mocking her. It was making fun of her. Do you really deny this? It's entire point is to say: look how dumb she is. The way she set this up, the best case for her is she is a monster. Ha ha ha.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Malarky.  You are trying to privilege her say-so because she is a woman making allegations of sexual abuse.  It just won't work.

I am doing no such thing. I'd like you to back up this assertion with any post from me ever. I think her statement is problematic. I think there is a problem with memory after 35 years. There is a reason for the statue of limitations in cases like this. I think there are many options between "liar" and "monster". By making the false dichotomy, you are part of the problem.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not mocking her.  I am saying that I do not think she is telling the truth.  That her affidavit is substantively a lie.  

That's not what your post said. It said best case she is a monster, in an attempt to ridicule her in a derisive way.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not mockery.  That's a very serious assessment.

Then maybe you should have just said that you think she is lying instead of mocking her.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

Your welcome.

-John

 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Ford's testimony changed no one's mind today, and Kavanaugh's testimony won't change anyone's mind either.

That is terribly unfair and unfortunate that anybody made their minds up before hearing any testimony.  

[randy]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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

All I can say is WOW!  He is ferocious in his own defense.  I think his ability to place himself at specific times and places via his personal calenders is extremely compelling.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, randy said:

All I can say is WOW!  He is ferocious in his own defense.  I think his ability to place himself at specific times and places via his personal calenders is extremely compelling.

Yep.  His anger was clear, but also moderated.  And yet his presentation of marshaled evidence was clear, very coherent, and based on substantive materials.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  I think it was Booker who mentioned this group, I think.

There were many documents placed into the record by certain of the Democratic senators. The letter from the “Mormon” women was among those Booker introduced. 

Note: I put quotation marks around “Mormon” not because I meant any disparagement toward them but because I am no uncomfortable using that nickname in most contexts after President Nelson’s instruction. 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  His anger was clear, but also moderated.  And yet his presentation of marshaled evidence was clear, very coherent, and based on substantive materials.

Thanks,

-Smac

I listened to most of Kavanaugh's hearing, and overall all I was pretty disappointed.  I'm sure there were good reasons, but every time Kavanaugh dodged a question, I cringed.  I would have expected one of the top judges in the country to do a little better under questioning.

 

 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, SteveO said:

No they’re not.

Yes they are.

 

6 hours 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?

 

Yes, criminal charges should be filed. If they drop this guy now they still have time to bring forward another candidate before (potentially) congress changes hands, which I know is one of their primary concerns.

[Gray]

5 hours 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 

A family member tried to murder me when I was 11. I couldn't tell you the month or the time of day, or who was home at the time. But I know exactly who did it.

 

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

Do you think she could be misremembering the alleged assault?

 

No, that's not plausible. You should watch highlights from Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh's testimony today. She is very credible. Kavanaugh has a temper tantrum and blows up at people asking him questions. He sounds guilty as sin.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

Then you're going to love Kavanaugh's screaming temper tantrum. Go catch some highlights. Especially telling when he's asked point blank if he thinks it would best for the FBI to investigate, and he refuses to answer. His body language is so telling.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

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

Still think so?

[Gray]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I do not believe Ford was politically motivated here.....BUT.....I firmly believe that Feinstein held onto this and has definitely used it for politically motivated reasons.

You've been misinformed. Feinstein did not disclose at the request of the victim. It was leaked to the press by someone else.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, randy said:

All I can say is WOW!  He is ferocious in his own defense.  I think his ability to place himself at specific times and places via his personal calenders is extremely compelling.

It's impressive that he didn't write down his failed rape attempt in his calendar?

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

His body language is so telling.

I did not realize you were a body language expert. I remember all of the body languages experts who determined that Amanda Knox was guilty of murdering her roommate despite zero forensic evidence.

Glenn

[Gray]

 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

I did not realize you were a body language expert. I remember all of the body languages experts who determined that Amanda Knox was guilty of murdering her roommate despite zero forensic evidence.

Glenn

Just watch him.