User Tag List

Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 112

Thread: Judging the Mitchell Report

  1. #1
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,262
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,512 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823

    Judging the Mitchell Report

    Rachel Mitchell, the republican hired prosecutor who asked Ford a number of questions during the recent hearing released her findings to the GOP via memo the other day (link to memo). I want to address it and the claims made within it, concluding with my summation of the nature of Mitchell's appraisal. I'm going to go point for point on the big tickets.

    1. Mitchel begins by noting that this would not likely be a case raised by a prosecutor of criminal action.

    She is right about that, but who thought a nearly 40 year old testimony without corroboration would be the stuff of favored prosecutorial discretion? No one. So why lead with it? Because it's the sort of excuse that many a non-lawyer will rally behind. "Hey, the prosecutor said she wouldn't advance Ford's claim, why should we believe it?" Well, that's what the hearing was for, to judge the veracity of the accuser and to hear the defense of the accused. And even Fox news pundits, in real time, found her testimony compelling.

    Mitchell raising the prosecutorial problem reminded me of Mitch McConnell's attempt to mislead (because he actually is a lawyer) people from the floor of the senate by decrying the lack of presumption of innocence in relation to the hearing. Why is that misleading? Because McConnell knows Judge Kavanaugh isn't supposed to have the presumption of innocence. That was established in prosecutorial actions for criminal activity where the state is a moving/challenging party to protect the rights of the weaker party, us.

    In a proceeding like this hearing the state is not the accuser or the defendant, but an interested party and objective trier of fact. To apply the presumption to Kavanaugh would be to begin believing that Ford is lying and has to prove otherwise. Both sides blew that one, but to go further would be a bridge too far, even for Washington.

    Back to the report.

    2. In asserting, correctly, that a prosecutor wouldn't advance it, Mitchell asserts that the testimony of those witnesses named by Ford, "have either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them."

    This is true in the same way my saying of you, "These people reading have either been paid assassins at one time or have just read me claiming they were at one time paid assassins." That is to say, it's a glass half full of misleading horsefeathers. And upon this non-rock the embolden Mitchell rests a following charge: "This is even weaker than that (a she said/she said)."

    No, no it isn't. It is precisely as weak as a he said she said because the only "witness" to the event who has denied it taking place is the charged party. So why try to make the accused look like a bystander whose inclusion allows for denial? Precisely because it allows Mitchell to then assess the case as one even weaker than the case she only just finished telling us she wouldn't prosecute.

    Another reason a prosecutor wouldn't advance the case? Not having the ability to cross examine those named as actual witnesses to the incident and surrounding events. A thing the prosecutor should have noted.

    3. Mitchell asserts Ford has "struggled" to name Kavanaugh.

    That's about as accurate a depiction as was Kavanaugh's relating, "All four witnesses who were allegedly at the event say it didn't happen." That is to say, neither statement accurately reflects the facts. Not having a name written down on notes is not a struggle. Notes from two different years and sessions that address the subject don't have Kavanaugh's name. As though they were meant to have it but Ford couldn't provide it. But that's not really the case. The absence of evidence here is not the evidence of an absence.

    The only other comment Mitchell makes ostensibly to shore up her weak claim to a weaker case is that Ford's husband claims to recall his wife giving Kavanaugh's name around the time when Mitchell asserts Kavanaugh's name had come up as a potential nominee under then Governor Romney's potential administration.

    So that's interesting. The other witnesses aren't given the "claim" status. Only the corroborating one. And then Mitchell puts the cherry on a bias leaning confection by letting everyone know how long it took for Ford to name Kavanaugh, before sidling away with the additional note that it isn't unusual for a great deal of time to lapse before accusers come forward (see: Catholic sexual abuse scandals).

    She could have referred to the husband's recollection as testimony. She could have begun with the lack of unusualness in late claims. Mitchell didn't. She is at the outset of her report establishing a pattern of putting the detractors of Ford's best foot/interest forward.

    4. Mitchell then asserts Ford "changed her description of the incident to become less specific."

    That's troubling, but not on the part of Ford. It's troubling that Mitchell assigns a motive in her description. It's troubling because in support of this Mitchell only offers that Ford described the incident as a sexual assault prior to their marriage and as physical abuse early in their marriage. She then notes that Ford was using both to describe the same event.

    Mitchell understands that Ford was not at that time nor at any time thereafter a lawyer. It is not unusual at all for laymen to refer to incidents of this sort by any number of descriptions which are not mutually exclusive. A sexual assault is physical abuse. And while the former is more accurate, I think anyone should understand that referring to a groping and having your mouth covered would be well described (and perhaps more inclusively described) as physical abuse.

    For Mitchell to rest another doubt on that is remarkable to me as a lawyer. She knows better. But then, she isn't representing a body that's doing what it should be up to and that is clear enough by examining this document, shaped to a task, with the aim of presenting as strong a case for denying Ford's claims as can be cobbled from the meager offerings set out.

    5. Mitchell is concerned about the nature of Ford's recollection of the nearly 40 year old event, because Ford can't recall any number of particulars that are broader strokes, like how she got home, while remembering a number of small and particular things related, like the fact she had one beer and wasn't on any medication at the time (or, though unmentioned because it wouldn't help her clients, the laughter of the boys as she was assaulted).

    Nothing in that is inconsistent with someone who has been the victim of a traumatic event, let alone one from decades earlier.

    6. Mitchell notes that no one named as witness has corroborated her recollections.

    Well, she already wrote that at the beginning. So why go back to it? You know why. The same reason she tacks on "[not] even her lifelong friend." Though her lifelong friend has said she believes Ford about the event. Why would anyone at the party recall it some 30 plus years later without having been privy to what allegedly transpired in that one bedroom?

    Mitchell's work is the difference between a hired gun and someone putting together her best legal understanding. It's the same mentality that transforms a lack of memory of the events in question into submitted testimony, "denying any memory of the party whatsoever." A subtle but important difference, a lawyerly trick. Place denial in as close and frequent proximity to the events as you can. Clever that, but misleading.

    7. Mitchell notes a number of inconsistencies in Ford's accounting.

    None of them alter the event or the people present. All of them are consistent with someone recalling a distant, traumatic event. What are these inconsistencies? They break into two camps. The first is inconsistency of the alleged assault. That's troubling. What are they?

    Not, as it turns out, a they at all. More an it broken into pieces and only tangentially related to the actual assault. "It" was whether or not after she locked herself in the bathroom she could hear Judge or Kavanaugh talking to other people. In one accounting she hears them talking to people downstairs and in another accounting she assumes they were talking to them. I'd assume the latter is more likely, but in any event Mitchell uses this, if broken into pieces to look a bit like more, as the single hook to hang a charge of inconsistency related to the assault itself. Remarkable.

    So what's the second half of the inconsistency proffer? It's about a few things. How many were at the party and whether or not she is inclined to characterize one of them as a bystander or something else. And Mitchell thinks Ford should have recalled a closer friend more readily than one of the other's she recalls as being present. That's it. No, really, read the thing. Though she again manages to break the same thing into several parts, that's all she has to found a larger sense of unreliability upon.

    8. Mitchell spends a lot of time deciding that because Ford doesn't recall any number of recent, non-traumatic events, as important as whether or not there was a video recording of her polygraph, or whether she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to a reporter from the Washington post, that it follows there's reason to question her memory.

    If that's the gold standard I have more reason to question Mitchell's, since she seemed to forget that she'd already written about no one named as a witness corroborating the testimony of Ford at the outset of her finding before restating it not all that long after.

    A curious bullet point in under that consideration is the refusal of Ford to provide the republicans with her therapy notes. Not something that really has anything to do with the heading, which is Mitchell's contention that Ford's memory is suspect. But it's a great way to imply an inconsistency waiting to happen if only, isn't it?

    9. Mitchel states that Ford's relating of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

    What questions and why? Well, she notes that Ford has stated she has a number of issues, some of which make travel difficult. Then she notes the delay in proceedings founded on that difficulty before laying in on the "But she traveled frequently for vacation" as if the two preclude one another. As if doing something difficult to achieve a pleasurable end is the same as forcing yourself to do something difficult in order to undergo something worse.

    Mitchell then decides to remind everyone that Ford doesn't appear to have been aware they could have and would have come to her, which seems like it should have gone under the memory section as it isn't a question raised by the psychological impact of the incident.

    Maybe it goes back to underscoring my problems with Mitchell's apparent insufficiency of memory. Or maybe she's just making sure she squeezes in her employers' talking points. One of those, to be sure.

    10. Mitchell asserts that the democrats and Ford's attorney's "likely affected Ford's account." Which is a pretty significant charge if it goes to the substantial. The implications are entirely accusatory. She then provides a calendar of events with no commentary to support or sum the why and particulars of the charge.

    On the whole this couldn't have been a better example of willfully biased examination of partial facts. I'd sum them but I think I've made a fairly large dent going item by item. I'll stop there for now.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; October 2nd, 2018 at 12:10 PM. Reason: renumbering and adding bold, some grammatical corrections
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (October 2nd, 2018),Ask Mr. Religion (October 2nd, 2018),MrDante (October 2nd, 2018)

  3. #2
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,094
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 853 Times in 613 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    253595
    nice analysis

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrDante For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (October 2nd, 2018),Town Heretic (October 2nd, 2018)

  5. #3
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Mitchell is concerned about the nature of Ford's recollection of the nearly 40 year old event, because Ford can't recall any number of particulars that are broader strokes, like how she got home, while remembering a number of small and particular things related, like the fact she had one beer and wasn't on any medication at the time (or, though unmentioned because it wouldn't help her clients, the laughter of the boys as she was assaulted).
    Just curious what you believe about Dr. Ford's memory of things which happened since her name was released as the woman making accusations about Cavanaugh. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) corrected Christine Blasey Ford, who testified that it would be “unrealistic” for the committee to visit her in California to hear her accusations of sexual abuse against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    Ford told the hearing that, due to her reluctance to fly, she had hoped the committee would come to her:

    I was hoping that they come to me. But, then, I realized that that was an unrealistic request.”

    “So, that was certainly what I was hoping – was to avoid having to get on an airplane – but, I eventually was able to get up the gumption, with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.”

    Do you think that any memory which Dr. Ford had decades and decades ago can be trusted since she couldn't even remember that Grassley had offered to send the investigators anywhere she wanted them to go just lately but she couldn't even remember that?

    Perhaps she had also forgotten about her fear of flying when she got on planes numerous times to make long trips all over the world!

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 3rd, 2018)

  7. #4
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,262
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,512 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Just curious what you believe about Dr. Ford's memory of things which happened since her name was released as the woman making accusations about Cavanaugh. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) corrected Christine Blasey Ford, who testified that it would be “unrealistic” for the committee to visit her in California to hear her accusations of sexual abuse against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    I believe it has been established that Ford was unclear on that point. My best guess aligns with what one of the republican senators had to say about it, that her interests weren't being actively served by the people surrounding her on the left.

    Do you think that any memory which Dr. Ford had decades and decades ago can be trusted since she couldn't even remember that Grassley had offered to send the investigators anywhere she wanted them to go just lately but she couldn't even remember that?
    Supra, but as with the Washington reporter notes I mentioned, it's possible to misremember or lose any number of things in the present and recent, if those aren't encoded into long term memory.

    As to decades old memories of trauma. Sure. I can remember having my arms injured water skiing when a moron I know took over the boat and didn't know how to properly throttle for a skier. I have an exceptional memory, but I couldn't tell you how I got there that day, or how I got home.


    Perhaps she had also forgotten about her fear of flying when she got on planes numerous times to make long trips all over the world!
    There's a great deal of difference between doing something unpleasant to get to a very pleasant and desired outcome and making yourself do something unpleasant to get to an even more unpleasant outcome. There's nothing inconsistent in that. It's human nature and it underscores her oft repeated profession that she really didn't want to do it/be there, but felt that she had to.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  8. #5
    Over 4000 post club lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,909
    Thanks
    8,517
    Thanked 3,007 Times in 1,942 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147613
    I feel sorry for Dr. Ford being dragged through the mud as she was.

    It amazes me though that Dr. Ford cannot really remember what happened four decades ago, however, recalls vividly that she drank “exactly one beer”. Don't know how I got there. Don't quite remember things about it. Don't know who brought me there. Don't know how I got home.

    She does not remember whether she took the polygraph test in July on the day before or the day after her grandmother’s funeral, or whether the polygraph was audio-recorded or video-recorded. Hell would freeze over if I would take a polygraph deep in grief, if the polygraph was done near my grandmother's funeral. Hell, I would remember that even if my life did not depend on it.

    She is 'afraid of flying', so I was told, however, she flies from California to the mid-Atlantic states every year to visit family, and to Hawaii, French Polynesia and Costa Rica, and flew to Washington to give testimony. She declined a committee suggestion that an investigator fly to California to hear her story. (This one took me by surprise because I really believed that that was true. That will teach me to believe anybody without corroboration anymore.)

    My mouth fell to the floor when she was surprised to hear that the offer had been made to question her at her home in California or any venue of her liking, even to being questioned only by females and no males. When are the Democrats going to start an investigation to find out why she was told that she had to become a public spectacle?

    =====

    Mike Cernovich of the Washington Post Investigations — Christine Blasey is a far left wing activist who spent all weekend deleting her social media accounts.

    I didn’t name her because that wouldn’t have been nice, but this is straight activism on her part.

    This is the classic “dog that didn’t bark.”

    By the time Ford went public, it wasn’t just her social media that had been deleted. It was everyone online reference to her.

    This isn’t normal.

    Reminder that I had Ford’s name before all these “journalists.”

    Everything had been wiped. Not just stuff she was in control of, like she Facebook.

    Google results, course syllabi, and results… ghosts.

    Someone INSIDE Google most likely manually deleted.
    washingtonpost.com/investigations

    =====

    When is the democratic investigation going to start about an alleged Google insider deleting everything about Dr. Ford?

    Doctor Ford admitted that she had connections with individuals inside Google in her testimony and that she hosts Google interns through her second door in her home.

    But I guess they forgot to SCRUB this one:
    Meditation with Yoga, Group Therapy with Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial — Lisa D. Butler, Lynn C. Waelde, T. Andrew Hastings, Xin‐Hua Chen, Barbara Symons, Jonathan Marshall, Adam Kaufman, Thomas F. Nagy, CHRISTINE M. BLASEY, Elizabeth O. Seibert, David Spiegel — Stanford University School of Medicine — paper published in 2008 in the Journal of Clinical Psychology
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/...ieve-memories/

    Just thinking out loud here: I wonder if she used techniques of self hypnosis on herself and that is why her memory is so jumbled up.

    I was not present when the 'alleged' whatever happened, but that something is not right, something is not right.

    The salivating Democrats and the no backbone Republicans allowing this poor woman to become a public spectacle is not going to help those women who really remember every single detail of what happened to them and are not being heard and being dismissed at this very moment in many different places all around the US and the world.

    But of one thing I am sure, the “I’m a defender of all women” crowd are working day and night so that all women have the right to murder other women in their womb. Go and think about that for a while.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lifeisgood For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 3rd, 2018),Jerry Shugart (October 2nd, 2018)

  10. #6
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,262
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,512 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisgood View Post
    I feel sorry for Dr. Ford being dragged through the mud as she was.

    It amazes me though that Dr. Ford cannot really remember what happened four decades ago, however, recalls vividly that she drank “exactly one beer”.
    It's just not that unusual. You can fixate on the darndest particulars while missing any number of things. I was just relating an event that happened to me water skiing. I can recall Tony at the throttle and I can tell you what trunks I was wearing, what the boat looked like. But I can't tell you where we were at the time. Just water.

    And I'd be surprised if anyone other than Tony remembers the incident at all.

    Don't know how I got there. Don't quite remember things about it. Don't know who brought me there. Don't know how I got home.
    Same here and mine was decades ago too. I probably drove, but I might have gone with George and Tony. We went nearly everywhere together. I couldn't tell you who owned the boat. Can't recall their face.

    She does not remember whether she took the polygraph test in July on the day before or the day after her grandmother’s funeral, or whether the polygraph was audio-recorded or video-recorded. Hell would freeze over if I would take a polygraph deep in grief, if the polygraph was done near my grandmother's funeral.
    I wouldn't either. And I wouldn't expect me to recall which day it was in relation unless it was the morning of the funeral or just after it that day. I wouldn't expect her to either.

    She is 'afraid of flying', so I was told, however, she flies from California to the mid-Atlantic states every year to visit family, and to Hawaii, French Polynesia and Costa Rica, and flew to Washington to give testimony. She declined a committee suggestion that an investigator fly to California to hear her story. (This one took me by surprise because I really believed that that was true. That will teach me to believe anybody without corroboration anymore.)
    Sure. I just visited that with Jerry. Many, many people do things that frighten them out of necessity. Public speaking, by way of...now it's one thing to do the unpleasant to reach the greater reward and another thing to contemplate doing the unpleasant to have an even worse time on the other end, to do it in order to relive and be questioned aggressively about one of the worst days of your life.

    I can understand that and so should you.

    My mouth fell to the floor when she was surprised to hear that the offer had been made to question her at her home in California or any venue of her liking, even to being questioned only by females and no males. When are the Democrats going to start an investigation to find out why she was told that she had to become a public spectacle?
    I think she was poorly used/manipulated by people with an agenda that largely had nothing to do with her actual complaint. One reason you won't find me praising the democrats on the committee.


    By the time Ford went public, it wasn’t just her social media that had been deleted. It was everyone online reference to her.

    This isn’t normal.
    Supra.

    Google results, course syllabi, and results… ghosts.
    If it wasn't there when searched for how do we determine it was there before?

    Someone INSIDE Google most likely manually deleted.
    washingtonpost.com/investigations
    Beats me. Could make for an interesting hearing.

    I'm mostly talking about the Mitchell memo here. There's a lot of ground to cover beyond it, including the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh and some troubling things contained within it.

    Just thinking out loud here: I wonder if she used techniques of self hypnosis on herself and that is why her memory is so jumbled up.
    There's nothing inconsistent in her recollections with someone retelling a narrative of a traumatic event from decades past. When you find yourself wondering about self hypnosis as an angle it's probably time to take a break and do something else for a while. Come back to it fresh.

    I was not present when the 'alleged' whatever happened, but that something is not right, something is not right.
    You should ask yourself is that something in the narrative or something else. That's pretty important.

    The salivating Democrats and the no backbone Republicans allowing this poor woman to become a public spectacle is not going to help those women who really remember every single detail of what happened to them and are not being heard and being dismissed at this very moment in many different places all around the US and the world.
    Okay. You should stop there. Honestly stop. I represented battered women for years. My first work as a poverty lawyer was under the VAWA grant and I was a liaison with every women's shelter in my county. [EDIT: Actually, in five surrounding counties as well.] In that capacity I spent a great deal of time learning about and then educating judges and members of law enforcement on the realities of domestic violence, physical, sexual abuse and its impact on the psychology of women. And women, even women just after events, will get things wrong, will forget things you'd think they'd know.

    It's true of all of us. I often recall to people my experience as an attorney for a client who was part of a multiple car accident. Dozens of well intentioned people were quickly interviewed and examined. You'd be amazed at what minutia was recalled and what escaped the notice of this or that witness to and participant in the event.

    But of one thing I am sure, the “I’m a defender of all women” crowd are working day and night so that all women have the right to murder other women in their womb. Go and think about that for a while.
    See, that just tells me your bias and hostility toward the left (some of which I share) is having too big a say in this. That has nothing to do with what did or didn't happen to her.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  11. #7
    Over 4000 post club lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,909
    Thanks
    8,517
    Thanked 3,007 Times in 1,942 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147613
    @Town Heretic, I have never been a political person. Had never even sent a letter to my reps in government until this morning telling them how I felt about their not defending the privacy of this 'alleged' abused woman. She was dragged through the mud and for that I really feel sorry for her.

    Senator Chuck Schumer said: "There's No Presumption of Innocence" For Kavanaugh. Would you like that to be said of you if you were in Kavanaugh's shoes? I wouldn't. How about your son, if you have a son? I wouldn't.

    Sen. Chuck Schumer vows to oppose Kavanaugh nomination with "everything I've got" about, what was it?, 20+/- minutes after the nomination announcement.

    Again, I feel sorry for Dr. Ford.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

  12. #8
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,262
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,512 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisgood View Post
    @Town Heretic, I have never been a political person. Had never even sent a letter to my reps in government until this morning telling them how I felt about their not defending the privacy of this 'alleged' abused woman. She was dragged through the mud and for that I really feel sorry for her.
    I agree with you on that. More, I agree with the president when he found her testimony compelling.

    Senator Chuck Schumer said: "There's No Presumption of Innocence" For Kavanaugh.
    I addressed this in my OP, but for those who haven't waded through it, the presumption of innocence exists for criminal proceedings and does so for a very important reason: the state is a moving, accusatory party to them. That means it brings resources the citizen can't reasonably begin to match, beginning with the seal of its authority and the impact of that on the process.

    In this hearing that isn't the case. The state is an interested party, not an advocate. Or at least that's how it should be. In such a proceeding, a highly stylized job interview, there can be no presumption of innocence, shouldn't be. Why? Because to presume Kavanaugh innocent is to presume the charge against him false, to begin to examine that charge with the assumption that Ford is lying. Because she has stated emphatically that there is no confusion in her mind at all on the point of who did this to her and what was done. Given there is no finding of mental incapacity on the part of Ford, that's what we're left with.

    Would you like that to be said of you if you were in Kavanaugh's shoes? I wouldn't. How about your son, if you have a son? I wouldn't.
    What if Mrs. Ford's place was occupied by your daughter? Would you want her to get a fair hearing or begin with the presumption that she was at best mistaken, or crazy, and at worst a liar?


    Sen. Chuck Schumer vows to oppose Kavanaugh nomination with "everything I've got" about, what was it?, 20+/- minutes after the nomination announcement.

    Again, I feel sorry for Dr. Ford.
    I do too and not any particular sympathy for any on the committee, left or right. I went into the hearing supporting Kavanaugh. I no longer do. I'll get into the why of that and his testimony at some point.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  13. #9
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I believe it has been established that Ford was unclear on that point.
    No, she was not unclear because she said:

    I was hoping that they come to me. But, then, I realized that that was an unrealistic request.”

    If she was telling the truth then she forgot something which was very important to her just weeks after being told.

    The only thing which she has to support her accusations is her "memory." That's the sum total of her evidence because even her long time friend denied what Dr. Ford supposedly remembered. The sum total. Nothing else!

    So Dr. Ford forgot that Grassley made the offer, even though that offer came within a very short period of time before she forgot it. So anyone with any common sense can understand that her memory cannot be trusted since something so important to her just escaped her memory after a short period of time.

    The only alternative is that she was lying and she did in fact know about the offer so anything she says cannot be trusted.

    In either case her testimony has nothing at all to commend it and many reasons why it cannot be trusted. If she forgets information which is very important to her within weeks then who in their right mind could think that her testimony about what happened decades and decades ago can be trusted?

    The Democrats vowed that they would do anything to stop Cavanaugh from being on the Supreme Court and that is one promise they are trying to keep. And here you are defending their star witness and her memory about what happened decades ago!

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    glorydaz (October 3rd, 2018)

  15. #10
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,821
    Thanks
    4,513
    Thanked 3,976 Times in 2,278 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147693
    Nicely done, TH. It is a pleasure to see an analytical legal mind at work in detail.

    I have no doubt the memo was a partisan response. That is unfortunate for someone like Mitchell. She has done well here in AZ and I expected a more detached reading of the proceedings.

    On the matter of detachment. It has raised plenty of eyebrows when applied to Kavanaugh's demeanor, warranting even a hilarious rendering by Matt Damon on SNL this past weekend. Suddenly all news media pixs of Kananaugh, no matter the topic, are now those of his most twisted facial expressions during his laments before the committee. The subtle manipulation by the media should not go unnoticed.

    Nevertheless, those that claim that, "Well, who can blame the man for becoming emotional?" have a point, but to use that while ignoring the matter of expected judicial temperament and detachment on the bench is simply imprudent. Yet these same folks will and have claimed Kavanaugh's judicial record should settle the matter of his detachment.

    I will disagree with that appeal to his record for the reason that what we witnessed in his behavior is the man right now. Sure, maybe he will change when this is all over, but human experience teaches me that moments like what we witnessed in Kavanaugh's outbursts and low-balling attempts are life-altering crossroads that usually take one in a very different direction. The emotional toil coupled with clearly displayed abhorrent behavior becomes the triggering seed of a corrupt metamorphosis. Should Kavanaugh be confirmed, I fear he will take an agenda borne from the hearings experience with him on the way to SCOTUS.

    As a citizen I would prefer, no...I demand, to not be burdened by all these maybes and fears, especially for someone that will sit at our highest court for decades. We should and can do better than this at the governmental level, moreover our elected representatives have a duty to see to it.

    If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, as a Republican from my radiator to my tailpipe, I am not disheartened. Mme. Barrett sits in the wings and will do just fine.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (October 2nd, 2018)

  17. #11
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,573 Times in 5,605 Posts

    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, as a Republican from my radiator to my tailpipe, I am not disheartened. Mme. Barrett sits in the wings and will do just fine.
    So do you not think that the Democrats will do anything they can do to block her appointment to the Supreme Court? If you actually believe the accusations made against Cavanaugh then I am sure by the time the Democrats are through with Barrett you will be against her too!

    "There's a sucker born every minute."

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry Shugart For Your Post:

    Grosnick Marowbe (October 2nd, 2018)

  19. #12
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,262
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,512 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Nicely done, TH. It is a pleasure to see an analytical legal mind at work in detail.
    Thanks. I've gone back and corrected the numbering, added bold and cleaned up a few small keystroke errors I noted. I was writing off the cuff so there are bound to be things wrong with it, repetition and a few grammatical hiccups. But I think it sets the table.

    I have no doubt the memo was a partisan response. That is unfortunate for someone like Mitchell. She has done well here in AZ and I expected a more detached reading of the proceedings.
    I think she advanced the cause of her title and I think that title was mistaken.

    On the matter of detachment. It has raised plenty of eyebrows when applied to Kavanaugh's demeanor, warranting even a hilarious rendering by Matt Damon on SNL this past weekend. Suddenly all news media pixs of Kananaugh, no matter the topic, are now those of his most twisted facial expressions during his laments before the committee. The subtle manipulation by the media should not go unnoticed.

    Nevertheless, those that claim that, "Well, who can blame the man for becoming emotional?" have a point, but to use that while ignoring the matter of expected judicial temperament and detachment on the bench is simply imprudent. Yet these same folks will and have claimed Kavanaugh's judicial record should settle the matter of his detachment.
    His becoming emotional wasn't as much of a problem with me. What bothered me was his evasion and his insubordinate behavior with at least two senators that I noted. He once gave a speech on how a judge has to behave. He mostly failed his litmus, from demeanor, to civility, to the appearance of partisanship with his opening salvo on conspiracy and the Clintons. There's more, especially on the drinking, and how all of it leaves me with more doubts than I need to have about his fitness.

    I will disagree with that appeal to his record for the reason that what we witnessed in his behavior is the man right now. Sure, maybe he will change when this is all over, but human experience teaches me that moments like what we witnessed in Kavanaugh's outbursts and low-balling attempts are life-altering crossroads that usually take one in a very different direction. The emotional toil coupled with clearly displayed abhorrent behavior becomes the triggering seed of a corrupt metamorphosis. Should Kavanaugh be confirmed, I fear he will take an agenda borne from the hearings experience with him on the way to SCOTUS.
    A part of my consideration as well. The partisan beginning gave me that pause alone. It was underscored in the thing I saw rise to the surface when dealing with senators who opposed him.

    As a citizen I would prefer, no...I demand, to not be burdened by all these maybes and fears, especially for someone that will sit at our highest court for decades. We should and can do better than this at the governmental level, moreover our elected representatives have a duty to see to it.
    I agree. Especially given that the founder of the list from which Kavanaugh was chosen has said that you could throw a dart at that short list and every candidate would be worthy. Let us find one of those then, please.

    If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, as a Republican from my radiator to my tailpipe, I am not disheartened. Mme. Barrett sits in the wings and will do just fine.
    Bingo, though I am only a republican in name and to help local and state candidates I know and have long relationships with, particularly within the judiciary.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 2nd, 2018)

  21. #13
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,262
    Thanks
    3,600
    Thanked 7,788 Times in 4,512 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147823
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    No, she was not unclear because she said: I was hoping that they come to me. But, then, I realized that that was an unrealistic request.”

    I'm saying it was unclear that she understood they would come to her, a thing one of the republican senators echoed in his criticism of the democratic senators. If he was wrong on the point and someone told her directly, in the midst of what was going on then it was lost on her. I sometimes lose my keys, but I know I had them and I'm generally reliable.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  22. #14
    Over 4000 post club lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,909
    Thanks
    8,517
    Thanked 3,007 Times in 1,942 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147613
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What if Mrs. Ford's place was occupied by your daughter? Would you want her to get a fair hearing or begin with the presumption that she was at best mistaken, or crazy, and at worst a liar?
    I can guarantee you, Town Heretic, that I would never allow my daughter to testify to the 'alleged' whatever happened to her in public, no matter what.

    Imagine that my daughter or your daughter, NOT be told that she did not have to testify about her 'alleged' whatever happened to her in public.

    I would sue the pants of the man or woman supposed to be her lawyer(s) (defenders) that would not have told my daughter, and made sure that she understood, that what she had to say could have been said in private and not permit her to be dragged in the mud like Dr. Ford was; that I can guarantee you.
    Last edited by lifeisgood; October 2nd, 2018 at 12:46 PM.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

  23. #15
    Over 4000 post club lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,909
    Thanks
    8,517
    Thanked 3,007 Times in 1,942 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147613
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I do too and not any particular sympathy for any on the committee, left or right. I went into the hearing supporting Kavanaugh. I no longer do. I'll get into the why of that and his testimony at some point.
    I, on the contrary, went into the hearing supporting Mrs. Ford. I no longer do. Mrs. Ford and her 'defenders' changed my mind.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us