Mormon Women for Ethical Government

[Nofear]

It's almost as if someone with MWEG saw this thread (though I have no way of knowing if that is the case):

https://www.mormonwomenforethicalgovernment.org/open-letter-to-our-sisters/

[Gray]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The never-Trumpers are entitled to their views. What they’re not entitled to do is form a group and falsely imply that said views typify the Church or its members. 

Good thing no one has done that.

[Gray]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The word “corruption” has been thrown around so much these days that it has largely lost its meaning. Too often it is used to mean “doesn’t accommodate my pet peeve or conform to my political agenda.”  

Picky people and their love of "the rule of law" and "the constitution" who can tell the difference between "right and wrong".

[smac97]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Trump is not a party. He is a a member in a party...and one of the more extreme ones they've had. 

And MWEG is criticizing that party, and only that party.

If and when MWEG start calling out ethical lapses from the Left, I'll consider revising my assessment.  

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

If you oppose him in any manner isn't a good indication of your party affiliation.

I agree. 

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

They are still not "plainly partisan" to me. They obviously circle around specific issues (sexual assault/#metoo issues, general abuse, compassionate Immigration, racism, gun violence, etc)....issues that there had been several high profile republican/white house problems with lately.

But they are only addressing those issues by criticizing Republicans.

They have essentially nothing to say about the Left.

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I appreciated Calm's perspective on this and note what I previously said to Scott as well. But beyond that, I would point out that a non-partisan organization doesn't mean they may not favor one side more than another. Two examples of other nonpartisan organizations include the NRA and the NAACP. 

The NRA seems to be much for topic-focused than MWEG, and appears willing to criticize both Democrats and Republicans, and is also sometimes criticized by both (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).  Nevertheless, the NRA's claim to nonpartisanship is not totally credible.

As for the NAACP, I don't consider them nonpartisan, and in face very partison (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Walden]

On 9/28/2018 at 4:32 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no functional equivalence here. On the one hand, it is a matter of the Church officially enunciating a position. On the other hand it is a matter of a political pressure group assuming for itself without authorization a name typically associated with the Church of Jesus Christ and its membership. 

I disagree. The church was acting as a political pressure group by encouraging members to take up action for this proposition. It wasn't the church's stance that I had a particular issue with, as I have always known their position, it was the political "call to arms" that I thought inappropriate and unethical for a tax-exempt organization. There is a difference in belief and political activity, which is where I finally drew my line.

[BlueDreams]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And MWEG is criticizing that party, and only that party.

If and when MWEG start calling out ethical lapses from the Left, I'll consider revising my assessment.  

I agree. 

But they are only addressing those issues by criticizing Republicans.

They have essentially nothing to say about the Left.

They're not criticizing the entire party, but people in that party. If you can find a quote where they wholesale criticize the entire republican party, as opposed to specific members in it, then I would agree. That would be partisan. If they Wrote to Hatch, "good riddance, now please vote for this democrat nominee we're gunning for" as opposed to a letter simply asking for him to pay attention to issues they have concerns with....then I would say it's partisan. So far what I'm seeing is that many of their causes just better allign with left-of-center groups. Not that democrats are perfect, they just have better track records with some of these issues in the recent past (note, I'm not saying they're perfect.....that's currently a pretty low bar if some of the people MWEG has responded to is the deciding factor)

They are also still a very young organization, with less time to have exceptions to their current trend. 

Honestly I find the continued assertion of the embodiment of one person as the party as coming from a somewhat partisan view, in and of itself. 

Quote

 

The NRA seems to be much for topic-focused than MWEG, and appears willing to criticize both Democrats and Republicans, and is also sometimes criticized by both (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).  Nevertheless, the NRA's claim to nonpartisanship is not totally credible.

As for the NAACP, I don't consider them nonpartisan, and in face very partison (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I chose those because I know they would have an obvious bias due to the current stance of the NRA and the demographics of the NAACP (most african americans)....but they still are also considered nonpartisan, whether we agree with it or not. Both have exceptions (here's one I found quickly for the NAACP). They're also organizations that have had YEARS to build up both an obvious bend and 

As NoFear posted, MWEG work to be nonpartisan and to not align or make recommendations that people vote one way or the other. Without being apart of their organization (maybe that'll change), I can't say one way or another how that works from the inside. But from the outside, I don't see enough evidence that they are actually partisan as opposed to having a left leaning bias due to demographics and who is most interested in their group.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 1, 2018 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

Just for fun

A video all about trying to bridge the divide between political opposites.  

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Here is a link to the memo itself.

The article goes on to summarize "the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo."

I think this summary (and the memo itself) are worth an in-depth read. 

I am occasionally criticized on this board for, it seems, not being sufficiently emotive in my posts.  These criticisms usually arise in the context of me evaluating a sensitive topic within a legal framework.  But as I recently noted, "Just because my posting style is not emotionalistic doesn't mean I don't have 'em."

I am a father to six children, including two daughters.  I have a wonderful wife.  I have a mother, and a mother-in-law, ten sisters / sisters-in-law, and twenty four nieces.  I am deeply concerned with their welfare, and the welfare of women and girls generally, in society.  But I don't do anyone any favors by injecting emotion into analysis of legal issues affecting women.  I also don't think I do any favors to women by holding them to a different evidentiary standard simply because they are women.  Respect and decency and courtesy are, for me, normative elements of behavior toward women.  But when it comes to a woman making legal/factual claims, she doesn't get to immunize scrutiny of those claims by hiding behind her gender.

I say this preemptively, as I think the above memo will be criticized as being insufficiently deferential to Dr. Ford.  But the memo treats Dr. Ford as a witness.  It does not give her any special treatment because she is a woman.  And given the context, that is precisely how it should be.

Again, I encourage interested parties to read the memo itself, and also the above summary.  

For myself, I think one of the most compelling portions of the memo is its assessment of Dr. Ford's use of her therapy notes, and her refusal to turn over those notes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

They're not criticizing the entire party, but people in that party. If you can find a quote where they wholesale criticize the entire republican party, as opposed to specific members in it, then I would agree. That would be partisan. If they Wrote to Hatch, "good riddance, now please vote for this democrat nominee we're gunning for" as opposed to a letter simply asking for him to pay attention to issues they have concerns with....then I would say it's partisan. So far what I'm seeing is that many of their causes just better allign with left-of-center groups. Not that democrats are perfect, they just have better track records with some of these issues in the recent past (note, I'm not saying they're perfect.....that's currently a pretty low bar if some of the people MWEG has responded to is the deciding factor)

They are also still a very young organization, with less time to have exceptions to their current trend. 

Honestly I find the continued assertion of the embodiment of one person as the party as coming from a somewhat partisan view, in and of itself. 

I chose those because I know they would have an obvious bias due to the current stance of the NRA and the demographics of the NAACP (most african americans)....but they still are also considered nonpartisan, whether we agree with it or not. Both have exceptions (here's one I found quickly for the NAACP). They're also organizations that have had YEARS to build up both an obvious bend and 

As NoFear posted, MWEG work to be nonpartisan and to not align or make recommendations that people vote one way or the other. Without being apart of their organization (maybe that'll change), I can't say one way or another how that works from the inside. But from the outside, I don't see enough evidence that they are actually partisan as opposed to having a left leaning bias due to demographics and who is most interested in their group.

 

With luv,

BD

You raise some solid points.  I will think on them.

Otherwise, I would prefer to let you have the last word.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You raise some solid points.  I will think on them.

Otherwise, I would prefer to let you have the last word.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds good, 

Have a good day, Smac. 

With luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

And MWEG is criticizing that party, and only that party.

If and when MWEG start calling out ethical lapses from the Left, I'll consider revising my assessment.  

I agree. 

But they are only addressing those issues by criticizing Republicans.

They have essentially nothing to say about the Left.

The NRA seems to be much for topic-focused than MWEG, and appears willing to criticize both Democrats and Republicans, and is also sometimes criticized by both (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).  Nevertheless, the NRA's claim to nonpartisanship is not totally credible.

As for the NAACP, I don't consider them nonpartisan, and in face very partison (see, e.g., here, here, here, here).

Thanks,

-Smac

Just wondering whether MWEG was around when Democratic Sen. Al Franken was accused of and ultimately resigned over allegations of sexual misconduct and, if so, whether they had something to say about it. 

[Nofear]

To cast frivolous aspersions to another group because some dare have variant political opinions than one's own speaks to the very heart of what extreme partinsanship entails.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Nofear said:

To cast frivolous aspersions to another group because some dare have variant political opinions than one's own speaks to the very heart of what extreme partinsanship entails.

Who’s doing that?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

It's almost as if someone with MWEG saw this thread (though I have no way of knowing if that is the case):

https://www.mormonwomenforethicalgovernment.org/open-letter-to-our-sisters/

It does look remarkably like that. 

But it could be they’ve gotten a lot of attention of late because Cory Booker mentioned them at the Kavanaugh circ... , uh, hearings. 

Somebody on my Facebook feed, a member of the organization, posted about them a day or so before I read about them here, so maybe they are on a more or less informal recruitment drive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/28/2018 at 12:45 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

As the other thread on this topic has been closed, I’ll report here that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has been voted out of committee on strictly partisan lines (scarcely any surprise there). 

But in some very last-minute, anteroom horse trading, Jeff Flake, Republican from Arizona and one of the Latter-day Saints on the committee, agreed with some Democrats that he would support the motion only with the stipulation that when the approval of Kavanaugh goes before the full Senate, his vote will be contingent on there being a one-week (maximum) FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

The agreement is not binding on the full Senate, but if the Republicans want Flake’s vote, they might have to honor his pledge. 

So as it turns out, it is only Monday, and Democrats are now whining that a week is not long enough, that they want an open-ended investigation that goes on forever. 

I wonder if Jeff Flake now feels that he has been played. 

As for me, I am not surprised. Does anyone now sincerely doubt that, at its heart, this is anything other than a delaying tactic?

Edited October 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I think it is likely for many involved, it was a delaying tactic.  For others, I believe they are sincere about having a fair investigestion.

I was impressed by Mitchell's? analysis.  For me, fair would be a week more of investigating to give anyone with info a chance to speak up and then it is time to move on.  Her info has too many gaps in it, including areas it seems to me there shouldn't be given the context provided (the info around the polygraph, for example).  Her one friend, who she was certain she was there...there appears to be no reason for her to lie she was not.

If additional info is found later, than impeach him.

[Kenngo1969]

I don't babysit threads, so perhaps someone has already pointed out the discrepancies between the much-more-conclusory statements contained in Julie Swetnick's affidavit and her subsequent, public, on-the-record statements.   Please forgive the duplication, if so.  "Became aware of" is perhaps the Ultimate Weasel Phrase often used by affiants who want to obscure how they came about their knowledge of events: What did you, personally, see the subject of the affidavit do?  What did you, personally, hear the subject of the affidavit say?  And so on. ("But she wasn't sworn when she talked to the news reporters, Ken.  She can tell them anything she wants and get away with it!" )  "I saw Brett Kavanaugh spike the punch," and "I saw Brett Kavanaugh give punch to girls who then went into another room with him," versus, "I saw Brett Kavanaugh by the punch," et cetera.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-gang-rape-claim-falls-apart/

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

It's already been confirmed over and over again that Kavanaugh will lie under oath about matters big and small. So his denials hold less than no weight.

[smac97]

[BlueDreams]

On 10/2/2018 at 1:12 AM, Calm said:

I think it is likely for many involved, it was a delaying tactic.  For others, I believe they are sincere about having a fair investigestion.

I was impressed by Mitchell's? analysis.  For me, fair would be a week more of investigating to give anyone with info a chance to speak up and then it is time to move on.  Her info has too many gaps in it, including areas it seems to me there shouldn't be given the context provided (the info around the polygraph, for example).  Her one friend, who she was certain she was there...there appears to be no reason for her to lie she was not.

If additional info is found later, than impeach him.

I appreciate Mitchell's analysis. I agree that the holes would likely (without enough corroboration) not make it in court. But this isn't a criminal prosecution, which to me means it doesn't have to meet the exact criteria that one would expect from a criminal prosecution (which usually has many sexual assault perpetrators go scott free, because the nature or the crime and trauma increases the likelihood of these said holes).  In Mitchell's papers, she did well to acknowledge where foggy or inconsistent memories is expected...I do think that she doesn't give enough credit to that though. For example, she noted that she couldn't remember how she got home from the party, but did remember one drink and no medications and minute details about that day. But the details she does remember is likely tied more emotionally down into her thoughts as she likely tried to make sense of the night and following decisions to not tell parents (she had a beer = I can't tell them cuz I'll get in trouble), a general knowledge about her self (no medications may have been the normal day experience for her in her teens). Even the info around the polygraph I would expect some inconsistency consider the level of stress and anxiety the memory is passing through currently. I remember it mentioned that her and her family had to leave the home due to death threats. That form of stress can reduce recall of more innocuous events or clear communication. It can also aggravate underlying emotional disorders or problems. So for example, she may have gotten her fear of flying under control only to have it flare up or become unbearable as she was working to deal with reliving her trauma, death threats and home displacement, and having her story questioned again and again in public spaces.

Trauma warps memory to crystalize the most pertinent, emotion-based memories...while blurring every other last detail. One that many can relate to here is 9-11. I was 12--13 when it happened and several things stand out from that day, as my family lived just south of DC. It is one of my clearest memories from my childhood. But I couldn't tell you what I was wearing, how long it took me to get home from school that day, what time the congress/presidential broadcast happened, what we ate that day, what time my parents came home from work, what I did the next day when we had school off, etc. And that was less than 2 decades ago.

Also her friend, mentioned that she didn't recall an event (considering how they describe it, it sounds that it was a fairly low-key get-together that were fairly frequent events) but that she believes Ford's claims nontheless. It's emotions that are most likely to tie down events in our memories. Just the other day I had a facebook request from a guy who looked vaguely familiar but that I had no working memory of. Based on mutual friends, I knew I must have known him in HS, but with no connecting details past that, he was just a somewhat familiar face that I couldn't tell you one thing about. I could see that happening in this case too. 

Along with that, there isn't an equivalent professional summation in some of Kavanaugh's claims that are also starting to have several inconsistent parts, particularly around his drinking habits. These aren't memory based, in some ways. More like themes to parts of one's life that shouldn't be hard to recollect. 

But that's probably more political concerns than I should have written. I'm glad that another background check is underway, even if it's not a full investigation of the event. I think that's what should have happened no matter political party.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited October 3, 2018 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

One thing that causes me some doubts is the sheer unreliability of eye-witness testimony.  There have been cases where a woman is convinced that someone was her rapist, and then DNA evidence proves that nope, it wasn't him.  Our brains are superstars at creating connections and memories that never actually existed in real life.  It's kind of scary how easily our memories are falsified by our brains.

The most famous case is well known.  Here are some excerpts-

"In 1984 I was a 22-year-old college student with a grade point average of 4.0, and I really wanted to do something with my life. One night someone broke into my apartment, put a knife to my throat and raped me.

During my ordeal, some of my determination took an urgent new direction. I studied every single detail on the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline; I looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that would help me identify him. When and if I survived the attack, I was going to make sure that he was put in prison and he was going to rot.

When I went to the police department later that day, I worked on a composite sketch to the very best of my ability. I looked through hundreds of noses and eyes and eyebrows and hairlines and nostrils and lips. Several days later, looking at a series of police photos, I identified my attacker. I knew this was the man. I was completely confident. I was sure.

I picked the same man in a lineup. Again, I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch.

When the case went to trial in 1986, I stood up on the stand, put my hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth. Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. It was the happiest day of my life because I could begin to put it all behind me.

In 1987, the case was retried because an appellate court had overturned Ronald Cotton's conviction. During a pretrial hearing, I learned that another man had supposedly claimed to be my attacker and was bragging about it in the same prison wing where Ronald Cotton was being held. This man, Bobby Poole, was brought into court, and I was asked, ''Ms. Thompson, have you ever seen this man?''

I answered: ''I have never seen him in my life. I have no idea who he is.''

In 1995, 11 years after I had first identified Ronald Cotton, I was asked to provide a blood sample so that DNA tests could be run on evidence from the rape. I agreed because I knew that Ronald Cotton had raped me and DNA was only going to confirm that. The test would allow me to move on once and for all.

I will never forget the day I learned about the DNA results. I was standing in my kitchen when the detective and the district attorney visited. They were good and decent people who were trying to do their jobs -- as I had done mine, as anyone would try to do the right thing. They told me: ''Ronald Cotton didn't rape you. It was Bobby Poole.

The man I was so sure I had never seen in my life was the man who was inches from my throat, who raped me, who hurt me, who took my spirit away, who robbed me of my soul. And the man I had identified so emphatically on so many occasions was absolutely innocent."

Here's the entire article.

 

[bsjkki]

36 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I appreciate Mitchell's analysis. I agree that the holes would likely (without enough corroboration) not make it in court. But this isn't a criminal prosecution, which to me means it doesn't have to meet the exact criteria that one would expect from a criminal prosecution (which usually has many sexual assault perpetrators go scott free, because the nature or the crime and trauma increases the likelihood of these said holes).  In Mitchell's papers, she did well to acknowledge where foggy or inconsistent memories is expected...I do think that she doesn't give enough credit to that though. For example, she noted that she couldn't remember how she got home from the party, but did remember one drink and no medications and minute details about that day. But the details she does remember is likely tied more emotionally down into her thoughts as she likely tried to make sense of the night and following decisions to not tell parents (she had a beer = I can't tell them cuz I'll get in trouble), a general knowledge about her self (no medications may have been the normal day experience for her in her teens). Even the info around the polygraph I would expect some inconsistency consider the level of stress and anxiety the memory is passing through currently. I remember it mentioned that her and her family had to leave the home due to death threats. That form of stress can reduce recall of more innocuous events or clear communication. It can also aggravate underlying emotional disorders or problems. So for example, she may have gotten her fear of flying under control only to have it flare up or become unbearable as she was working to deal with reliving her trauma, death threats and home displacement, and having her story questioned again and again in public spaces.

Trauma warps memory to crystalize the most pertinent, emotion-based memories...while blurring every other last detail. One that many can relate to here is 9-11. I was 12--13 when it happened and several things stand out from that day, as my family lived just south of DC. It is one of my clearest memories from my childhood. But I couldn't tell you what I was wearing, how long it took me to get home from school that day, what time the congress/presidential broadcast happened, what we ate that day, what time my parents came home from work, what I did the next day when we had school off, etc. And that was less than 2 decades ago.

Also her friend, mentioned that she didn't recall an event (considering how they describe it, it sounds that it was a fairly low-key get-together that were fairly frequent events) but that she believes Ford's claims nontheless. It's emotions that are most likely to tie down events in our memories. Just the other day I had a facebook request from a guy who looked vaguely familiar but that I had no working memory of. Based on mutual friends, I knew I must have known him in HS, but with no connecting details past that, he was just a somewhat familiar face that I couldn't tell you one thing about. I could see that happening in this case too. 

Along with that, there isn't an equivalent professional summation in some of Kavanaugh's claims that are also starting to have several inconsistent parts, particularly around his drinking habits. These aren't memory based, in some ways. More like themes to parts of one's life that shouldn't be hard to recollect. 

But that's probably more political concerns than I should have written. I'm glad that another background check is underway, even if it's not a full investigation of the event. I think that's what should have happened no matter political party.

 

With luv,

BD

This is a political case and that is why I think it is important to isolate this one case and view it critically based on the evidence. Especially when activists have been stating the tactics are by 'whatever means necessary.' http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/09/opposing-kavanaugh-by-whatever-means-necessary.html People can believe her, but there is absolutely no evidence to back up her claims. Not only does her friend state she doesn't recall this party, she states she did not know Brett Kavanaugh at all and was never at a party that he attended. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6223139/Fords-friend-says-does-not-refute-Kavanaugh-allegation-does-not-remember-infamous-party.html. Another questions I have his why won't her team turn over all the evidence she describes in her letter? https://www.scribd.com/document/389991842/Letter-to-Ford-attorneys#from_embed  The committee now has a sworn statement from the ex-boyfriend saying she gave tips to a friend about taking a polygraph. He also states she was not afraid of flying or tight spaces. I am waiting for this information to be corroborated based on his statements. There is also confusion about her 2nd door story about her house.  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/02/building_documents_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html Kavanaugh admitted he drank in high school and college and even drank too much. His friends and fellow students have testified to this effect but no one has testified they witnessed him black out drunk or mistreating women.

My default is to believe the victim. But in a highly charged political atmosphere and the unethical way these charges were hidden and then leaked at the most opportune time to derail this nomination, I cannot ignore evidence and reason and make a judgement that a man who has been through 6 previous FBI background checks and used to be trusted with the nuclear codes and who before this had a spotless reputation, is really a serial rapist and alcoholic. 

If Ford is a victim, she has been treated badly by her handlers who have used her to further their own agenda and Kavanaugh's reputation has been destroyed. If he has been falsely accused, there is no getting that back...ever. This will go down in history as a very sad episode in the history of Supreme Court nominations.

Edit: Monica Mclean denies she was given tips on taking polygraphs by Ford. https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/monica-mclean-denies-ford-polygraph/  She released the statement to the media. I will wait and see if she swears to a sworn statement. She has been an FBI agent since 1992 and retired in 2016. Now we have he said/she said about this issue. Who do you believe? 

Edited October 3, 2018 by bsjkki

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

It's already been confirmed over and over again that Kavanaugh will lie under oath about matters big and small. So his denials hold less than no weight.

What's your real name (along with a few other IRL details I'm sure you won't mind providing)?  I'd like to go pawing through whatever record I can find about you, to determine how truthful you are.  (But don't worry, I don't have any kind of an agenda or an axe to grind.)  I know, I know, your immediate rejoinder will be, "But, Ken, I'm not being considered for a vacancy on the Supreme Court."  But it's amazing how willing some people are to subject others to standards they don't wish to have applied to themselves.  I think far too many people are far too willing to make Brett Kavanaugh an offender for a word (see Isaiah 29:21; see also Matthew 7:2-5).

[bsjkki]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't babysit threads, so perhaps someone has already pointed out the discrepancies between the much-more-conclusory statements contained in Julie Swetnick's affidavit and her subsequent, public, on-the-record statements.   Please forgive the duplication, if so.  "Became aware of" is perhaps the Ultimate Weasel Phrase often used by affiants who want to obscure how they came about their knowledge of events: What did you, personally, see the subject of the affidavit do?  What did you, personally, hear the subject of the affidavit say?  And so on. ("But she wasn't sworn when she talked to the news reporters, Ken.  She can tell them anything she wants and get away with it!" )  "I saw Brett Kavanaugh spike the punch," and "I saw Brett Kavanaugh give punch to girls who then went into another room with him," versus, "I saw Brett Kavanaugh by the punch," et cetera.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-gang-rape-claim-falls-apart/

 

Alan Dershowitz  "Michael Avenatti may now have an ethical oblication to withdraw Swetnick's affidavit, since she contradicted material portions of it in a tv interview. https://twitter.com/AlanDersh

[Kevin Christensen]

The presumption of innocence ought to apply to both parties.  Not the one that happens to align with one's ideological preferences, and that fit one's favored narrative. 

One of the most telling commentaries I have seen is this one, noting a clear difference in which party actually answered questions and which party evaded them.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

That confirms my impression while watching.  One person was telling the truth as they experienced it.  One person was trying to control he narrative and did so by avoiding questions, changing the subject, and memorably pushing back with "Did you?"  And of course, "I got in to Yale."

Plus, there is the issue of temperament.  Do I want someone on the Supreme Court who could be so nakedly partisan as to suggest that he would use his court seat to take vengeance on his enemies?   The temperament he demonstrated has caused many people to question his suitability on that alone.

Ideology colors everything.  I'm a democrat on grounds they that show much more concern and care for the poor.  So it's best to acknowledge that, and not presume that ideology is something that happens to other people.  Ideology shows up in the stories and examples we offer as generalizing frameworks.  For example, there is such a thing as a false accusation.  Is Ford making a false accusation because such things happen now and then and perhaps or necessarily happened this time, or because there predominance of evidence and patterns of behavior suggest that this is the case?

Quote

Studies have found that false accusations are quite rare, but when they do happen, they tend to share several important characteristics. To anyone familiar with false rape accusations, the striking thing about this story is that it’s so undramatic. False stories typically have a lurid quality, often involving bizarre forms of cruelty that don’t always strictly make sense.

...

The reason for this dramatizing tendency is clear. There’s no point in making up a rape story that may cause people to minimize the seriousness of the allegation or make them think, “So what?” It’s crucial to a false accuser to tell a story so horrific that no normal person could fail to be moved.

In Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh, we have none of this. The event described feels common. Ford emphasizes that both Kavanaugh and Judge seemed to have no inkling of the seriousness of what they were doing, and the story ends with the slapstick note of Judge knocking them all into an ungainly heap.

She alleges that she feared Kavanaugh might kill her through drunken clumsiness, not through savagery. This is not a story crafted to earn sympathy or destroy someone’s character. This is a story someone tells because it’s most likely true.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford

The same essay also has this:

Quote

Additionally, Ford herself — a married professor who teaches part time at Stanford — doesn’t fit the profile of a false accuser. Adults who make false accusations generally either have a criminal history or have a specific type of mental illness known as a factitious disorder: a personality disorder related to Munchausen syndrome that compels them to say they’ve been assaulted in dramatic ways.

Note that no study points to mental illnesses such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder being associated with false reports of rape. This distinction is crucially important, since having mental illness is strongly correlated with being a victim of rape.

It is comparatively common for teenagers to make false accusations, typically as an alibi to get out of trouble. These cases can end tragically, as in the story of the 14-year-old girl with cognitive deficits caught in a compromising position with a boy by her mother, who assumed she’d been raped. The panicked girl agreed to the false accusation and only confessed her lie after the boy was already in prison.

Ford’s situation, on the other hand, couldn’t be more different. It is not common for adults to falsely report that they were raped many years after the accusation. In my research, I didn’t come across a single verified example of this. So — counterintuitively for many people — if Ford had reported the assault when it happened, there would be far more reason to suspect it was a lie.

In comparison, what kind of patterns show up with Kavanaugh, and not just in the afternoon testimony, but in his first statements when Trump put him forward, claiming that "No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."  In fact, Trump just looked at a short list of 25 provided by the Federalist Society in their ongoing strategy to pack the courts with their members.  And Kavanaugh happened to be the one who had written opinions that might come in handy for Trump in light of the ongoing Russia investigation.  So Kavanaugh was using what the Book of Mormon calls "much flattery" towards Trump and himself. And there is much more, already known and emerging.  Much more.  Including the Kavanaugh handwritten letter from 1983 describing himself and his friends as obnoxious drunks.  "I think we are unanimous that any girls we can beg to stay there are welcomed with open ….” he wrote, adding the four-dot ellipsis himself."

https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/nation/letter-kavanaugh-wrote-in-admits-he-and-friends-were-loud/article_b7145943-dff9-52f8-8013-d03300475063.html

He has former friends backing up that picture, talking about how he has downplayed what they witnessed as his excessive drinking and loutish behavior.

On the other hand, Trump mocked Ford at a Rally, in light of his own experience with what he calls false accusations.   Sigh.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA