User Tag List

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 112

Thread: Judging the Mitchell Report

  1. #31
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147610
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Okay, but that can't ring as loudly for me. I'm not casting aspersions on your truthfulness, but I do think it speaks to where your passion and allegiance rests. Because, as I noted above, with that mud and with testimony, again, that the president and many of those to the right on that committee, along with real time commentators from Fox news, for Pete's sake, found credible, you have somehow realigned. And done so publicly.
    Well, it certainly seems to me that you are casting aspersions on my truthfulness and now for Pete's sake? you are asking me to say what I do not believe anymore. No can do.

    I believe two times now you, Town Heretic, has used the word 'aspersions' on what I have stated and now you are asking for Pete's sake that I change what I said publicly, because what I said "can't ring as loudly for me (Town Heretic)". I would say that the one that would have the problem with your 'ringing' is you and I cannot do anything about your 'can't ring as loudly for me (Town Heretic).' I apologize for not being able to help your 'ringing'.
    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. 2:1318)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:2324)

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

    Grosnick Marowbe (October 2nd, 2018),Jerry Shugart (October 2nd, 2018)

  3. #32
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,562 Times in 5,600 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147819
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And to receive justice, to have a chance for it in that setting she should expect open minds to consider her testimony.
    How could anyone with an open mind actually believer her testimony from decades ago since she cannot remember things from just a few weeks ago?

    She couldn't remember the day she took the polygraph. It might have been the day of her grandmother's funeral or it could have been on another day.

    She couldn't remember who advised her to take the polygraph.

    She couldn't remember who paid for the polygraph.

    She was told that Grassley would send the investigators to her but she forgot that.

    The only evidence she has in regard to her accusations against Kavanaugh is her "memory" but even her own long time friend disputes what Dr. Ford "remembered."

    And now we read this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And to receive justice, to have a chance for it in that setting she should expect open minds to consider her testimony.
    Since you have considered her testimony tell us why anyone in their right mind can believe that her memory of what happened in the '80s can be believed as being accurate since she admits that she can't even remember many things that happened just a short time ago.

    Sometimes in order to determine the truth a person has to use a little common sense.

  4. #33
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisgood View Post
    Well, it certainly seems to me that you are casting aspersions on my truthfulness
    It shouldn't since I went to pains to literally tell you and anyone reading that I didn't doubt your truthfulness.

    I have no reason outside of cynicism and an absence of external evidence to attempt to doubt you and I suppose I could with some reason if I was inclined to, given that silence and this volume. It doesn't take overly much to move a mind from one to the other if they're inclined.

    I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt absent a compelling reason not to.

    What I've noted is that on the other side of it you're rather public and pronounced. That has to speak to the level of commitment and certainty or else why the fairly dramatic disparity? That you were moved from the one point to this current one with a fairly thin reason relating to an unsettled dispute over where 4 boys were that might not even end up as a dispute supports this at the very least, this least cynical of readings possible.

    I noted that you said she was dragged through the mud, that you wouldn't find that a just treatment for your daughter or mine, and that it happened. And yet, on the other side of that you move your opinion. And as reason for moving it relate to that potential dispute between the notes and Ford's recollection of what she said to her therapist. The therapist who might recant, who is unheard, and uncalled. But then, who wasn't left on the vine in this hearing?

    It's almost as if the truth were secondary to something else so far as the movers and shakers were concerned...but that would be cynical of me to believe.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. #34
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147610
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And to receive justice, to have a chance for it in that setting she should expect open minds to consider her testimony. So should Kavanaugh.
    WE all did consider her testimony, Town Heretic.

    I spent all her testimony glued to the TV. I heard every single word she said. I was so hoping that someone she provided as witnesses (because they saw/knew? something), including her long life friend, would have corroborated any of her allegations. None did.

    She provided the 'allegation' and the witnesses, Town Heretic. You or I did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Democrats did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Republicans did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses either.

    Dr. Ford alone provided the 'allegation' and her witnesses and none corroborated what she said. Either the 'alleged' whatever happened to her happened in another setting with other people and witnesses and she has all her 'allegation', witnesses, and accused confused..... You can make your own decision on that, exactly like I can and did. That that 'can't ring as loudly for me (Town Heretic)' there is nothing I can do about it.

    I did not hear Judge Kavanaugh's defense though.
    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. 2:1318)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:2324)

  6. #35
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,279
    Thanks
    178
    Thanked 801 Times in 542 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    270266
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    [/B]

    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.
    How bout what lake it was on?
    Who's boat?
    Who was the moron?
    When did this happen?

    The only question she can answer is who the moron was.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to fool For Your Post:

    Jerry Shugart (October 2nd, 2018)

  8. #36
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147610
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt absent a compelling reason not to.
    Me too. And I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What I've noted is that on the other side of it you're rather public and pronounced. That has to speak to the level of commitment and certainty or else why the fairly dramatic disparity? That you were moved from the one point to this current one with a fairly thin reason relating to an unsettled dispute over where 4 boys were that might not even end up as a dispute supports this at the very least, this least cynical of readings possible.
    I could say the same thing about you changing from Judge Kavanaugh to Dr. Ford. Rhetorical comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I noted that you said she was dragged through the mud, that you wouldn't find that a just treatment for your daughter or mine, and that it happened. And yet, on the other side of that you move your opinion. And as reason for moving it relate to that potential dispute between the notes and Ford's recollection of what she said to her therapist. The therapist who might recant, who is unheard, and uncalled. But then, who wasn't left on the vine in this hearing?
    That was only ONE of the many reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It's almost as if the truth were secondary to something else so far as the movers and shakers were concerned...but that would be cynical of me to believe.
    I could say the same thing about you. I believe you said something to the effect that you also changed your 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. 2:1318)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:2324)

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to lifeisgood For Your Post:

    Jerry Shugart (October 2nd, 2018)

  10. #37
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147610
    Dr. Ford kept resorting to technical testimony as "how laughter is stored in the hippocampus". IMHO, a real victim wouldn't say that, a real victim would describe the laughter.
    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. 2:1318)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:2324)

  11. #38
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    15294
    Believe the woman.

    It's the bottom line of #MeToo.

    It's orders of magnitude more difficult now to steal merchandise from retails stores than it used to be, before surveillance generally everywhere. It's more difficult to rob liquor stores because of the same reality. So people can't do what they used to do so easily due to video cameras.

    With these matters in the OP, there are no cameras involved, the 'video evidence' is the victim herself, or the child, or the man. While video evidence is usually definitive and unambiguous as to investigators, juries, and individuals being able to accurately determine the facts, the supposed victim's testimony is a different type of evidence, but 'Believe the Woman' does capture the essence of how we are changing as a society, we are not dismissing these testimonies out of hand or with diminished effort.

    Has Dr. Ford been 'believed' in this case, by our elected officials; has the supposed victim been given a fair opportunity to deliver her testimony, the closest thing that any of us has to 'video footage;' have they dismissed her testimony out of hand, or given only diminished effort to establishing the facts?

    Now, due to this process, we've come to learn more about Judge Kavanaugh personally, and how he handles himself under some duress, either being falsely accused of a thing, or of hoping to survive a just accusation, and so he may not make it through, for a different reason than why we might have thought, back at the beginning of this seeming debacle.

    I'm not sure that testiness is troubling in a Supreme Court justice, myself. Their decisions are never made 'in the moment,' and plus there are nine of them, and I believe that perhaps these nine people provide an impressive mix of both self-modulation and internal competition when fashioning a ruling. So I don't think his temper is something to rule out his confirmation here.

    I think that our elected officials have been given a fair chance to determine their final decision, and I think the forthcoming FBI report on their additional investigation is being even more than fair also, so I'll support whatever they decide, given their closer proximity to the thing.

    I just need to see a justice who intends to read the Second Amendment as it's written and largely as it's been authoritatively interpreted, that the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, shall not be infringed. If it's not Kavanaugh, it can be someone else.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  12. #39
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    12,793
    Thanks
    1,246
    Thanked 8,562 Times in 5,600 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147819
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I'm not sure that testiness is troubling in a Supreme Court justice, myself. Their decisions are never made 'in the moment,' and plus there are nine of them, and I believe that perhaps these nine people provide an impressive mix of both self-modulation and internal competition when fashioning a ruling. So I don't think his temper is something to rule out his confirmation here.
    There is also the evidence that in ten years as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit his temper has never been an issue.

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

    lifeisgood (October 4th, 2018)

  14. #40
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    How bout what lake it was on?
    We use rivers around here, mostly. I couldn't tell you. Normally I'm on the Tensaw, but that's close and I know it was further away, as in somewhere much nearer the beach.

    Who's boat?
    Ray. You know him? I actually thought I knew that one, but now that I think about it more, it had to be someone else, because none of us owned a boat. One of my friend's dads or someone's in the group of people.

    Who was the moron?
    One of my best friends. He'll remember it, but probably no one else there would.

    When did this happen?
    Jeeze...decades ago. I couldn't tell you the year. I could give you the range, but I'm not sure really. Either late teens or early twenties (my age, not the year ) It's been so long ago. Tony and George were my running mates. We kept getting together into our 20s. But by our mid 20s George was dead and Tony was in the Corps.

    The only question she can answer is who the moron was.
    No, that's not true, fool. If you aren't familiar with her testimony you should watch it. If you watched it again you have even worse memory issues than Mitchell or Ford.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  15. #41
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Believe the woman.
    Like you, I don't believe that's a fair premise. Wasn't mine. Shouldn't be anyone's who is interested in the truth. You believe the more believable, if you have to and testimony is all you have. That didn't have to be the case here, but the Committee decided to limit it to that and lawyer letters, introduced exhibits which reduced to testimonials of sorts.

    Has Dr. Ford been 'believed' in this case, by our elected officials;
    Members on both sides of the committee, and the president declared her testimony compelling. Even the accused said he thought something traumatic happened to her, but it just wasn't him.

    So it lives or dies on the "him" part for her and his testimony in response. She was emphatic about remembering him. Her husband has said she named him long before his nomination. He says it never happened.

    Now, due to this process, we've come to learn more about Judge Kavanaugh personally, and how he handles himself under some duress, either being falsely accused of a thing, or of hoping to survive a just accusation, and so he may not make it through, for a different reason than why we might have thought, back at the beginning of this seeming debacle.
    That's certainly problematic for him. On the singular point I thought they both delivered believable testimony. He got into trouble outside of his denial and I'm not sure it won't sink him.

    I think that our elected officials have been given a fair chance to determine their final decision, and I think the forthcoming FBI report on their additional investigation is being even more than fair also, so I'll support whatever they decide, given their closer proximity to the thing.
    I think that at the very least, the other alleged person in the room should have been compelled to give testimony. I'd also have had the husband there for cross. And every alleged material witness. Not that many, really, but we could have heard them and read them and so could the committee. I think it was a serious error of omission.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  16. #42
    Over 2500 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,762
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1,003 Times in 651 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    365542
    TH, rational thought rarely works here. But nice try.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Jonahdog For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (October 2nd, 2018)

  18. #43
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    How could anyone with an open mind actually believer her testimony from decades ago since she cannot remember things from just a few weeks ago?
    Anyone who has been cross examined by someone during a stressful period. Everyone thinks they can kill at Jeopardy until the lights go on and the cameras focus. Then the ease of a living room gives way to stresses that can leave knowledgeable people feeling like momentary idiots.

    She couldn't remember the day she took the polygraph. It might have been the day of her grandmother's funeral or it could have been on another day.

    She couldn't remember who advised her to take the polygraph.

    She couldn't remember who paid for the polygraph.

    She was told that Grassley would send the investigators to her but she forgot that.
    Why would she commit the day of the polygraph to long term memory?

    She knew she had attorney's handling details like the set up of the poly and she knew there were efforts to raise money to pay for expenses related to the hearing. She said as much. I suspect she was grateful for that degree of handling given the stress she was under.

    The only evidence she has in regard to her accusations against Kavanaugh is her "memory" but even her own long time friend disputes what Dr. Ford "remembered."
    What friend and in what particular? All I've read is that the named parties don't recall the party, and why would they? Absent immediate knowledge of a thing that would make it stand out it's at best just one night among many decades ago. I'd be suspicious if someone said, "Oh, I recall that night. Nothing like that happened."

    Since you have considered her testimony tell us why anyone in their right mind can believe that her memory of what happened in the '80s can be believed as being accurate since she admits that she can't even remember many things that happened just a short time ago.
    Anyone is a tough sell. I, like many republicans and the president himself, found her testimony compelling. I left confident that she believed the narrative she was telling the committee. Not even the man accused has said otherwise. Before this all began I supported Kavanaugh's nomination. The ABA gave him high marks and his acumen seem uncontested. That and the sitting president's desire were really all that I needed absent some intervening reason why I or anyone should change their mind.

    I found her testimony in line with who knows how many people I've examined in situations very similar if more immediate than the one in question. I was a VAWA lawyer for a number of years earlier in my practice as a poverty lawyer. In that capacity, covering several counties (five, if memory serves me without listing them) and numerous shelters. And in my larger practice, some of which I've related, where witnesses to even immediate events recalled the darndest details and missed things that you'd wonder at, even to the point of getting chronology wrong when they were literally a part of an accident. It happens.

    One thing people didn't understand about Mitchel that I meant to bring up earlier. She has been criticized for suddenly concentrating on side bar questions and odd minutia. I can tell you that wasn't a sign of incompetence. It was, rather, a calculated move on her part to accomplish two things. The first was to test on points of memory that might give insight into her frame of mind and/or capacity. The second and more important thing she was doing involved interrupting the narrative, if it was scripted. She wanted to throw Ford off her mark, if she was on it. Mitchell was a little handicapped in this by time constraints, but Ford was handling that well enough that Mitchell left it eventually, if only toward the end.

    Sometimes in order to determine the truth a person has to use a little common sense.
    I agree, though that can be misleading when the person exercising it doesn't understand things important in a consideration, long and short term memory and how it works, what's unusual in omission and what's consistent with an unscripted recollection of facts, even one refreshed. Cross and direct examinations are an art form of sorts. It takes years to become accomplished at it. Mitchell is actually pretty good.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







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

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 2nd, 2018)

  20. #44
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisgood View Post
    WE all did consider her testimony, Town Heretic.
    I don't know if WE did that at all. But I'm certain I did. I'm certain that I went through the prosecutor's memo in the same spirit and with the same thoroughness. I've demonstrated some of that here.

    I spent all her testimony glued to the TV. I heard every single word she said. I was so hoping that someone she provided as witnesses (because they saw/knew? something), including her long life friend, would have corroborated any of her allegations. None did.
    How could they? The only people she told were her therapist and husband, at the outset of moving toward this. Her husband has supported her narrative. The prosecutor decided to, without examination, suggest he was misremembering based on Kavanaugh's name possibly coming up in his line of sight when Romney was a candidate for the presidency. . . Her lifelong friend has, however, said that she believes Dr. Ford.

    She provided the 'allegation' and the witnesses, Town Heretic. You or I did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Democrats did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses. The Republicans did not provide the 'allegation' or the witnesses either.
    Rather, she gave testimony. No witnesses were allowed at the hearing. They should have been. They should have been called to be examined directly and given the eye test during their answers. It makes a difference in both the credibility of their testimony and, sometimes, in what they actually end up saying.

    Any trial lawyer understands this and the prosecutor is a skilled attorney.

    Dr. Ford alone provided the 'allegation' and her witnesses and none corroborated what she said.
    Untrue. Her husband corroborated her naming him. He wasn't called. The people who have no particular reason to remember the particular party unsurprisingly didn't remember it. The two people who would, but who would stand to lose profoundly if the narrative was true said, "It wasn't me" and "I don't remember any such party." The second one surprised me. I expected Judge to say, as Kavanaugh had, that it never happened. He didn't. He said he didn't recall it. That's remarkable when you think about it for its lack of finality and rebuttal.

    I did not hear Judge Kavanaugh's defense though.
    You should look it up. On the issue itself he was excellent. Then he undermined the effort on a few fronts.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  21. #45
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Like you, I don't believe that's a fair premise.
    What I tried to explain was that we are changing into people whose only alternative to rock solid evidence like video footage, is the supposed victims' testimonies, and we need to treat those testimonies with great interest and care, from whomever they are, or what they're claiming that whoever did to them.

    iow in another world, Dr. Ford's complaint might have simply been dismissed by 'the patriarchy,' and Judge Kavanaugh would already have been sized for his new digs. But in this '#MeToo' world, despite the lack of video evidence, we are becoming more and more careful to take such accusations seriously. Seriously enough, in this case, that we've got not much else happening in some parts of Congress until this process is completed.

    iow again, in the lack of video surveillance, 'Believe the Woman' means essentially, 'look at the video.' At the very least look at it. Watch it. Observe it and study it. Is there anything there? Is it worth following, is it worth investigating further, is this credible or believable or what.

    Did we do this, through our elected officials, did we, in this case, 'Believe the Woman?' Of course it doesn't mean all other principles of determining facts go out the window, but did we at the very least give the supposed victim's testimony a thorough 'viewing?' Were we fair to Dr. Ford?

    To me, it appears that we've been, and I repeat myself wrt this additional FBI investigation, more than fair with her. I think that we through our elected officials have seen the 'footage' and have had time to 'rewind' and rewatch it, and inquire about it and about things, and also we have seen more of Judge Kavanaugh's character, as a bonus, so I think that their vote will be legitimate. I'm confident that all things considered they'll make the right choice, whatever choice they happen to make.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Wasn't mine. Shouldn't be anyone's who is interested in the truth. You believe the more believable, if you have to and testimony is all you have.
    I've said my piece here above, but it was Dr. Ford's side that appeared confused, and Judge Kavanaugh's that was more congruent, but I wonder if we're not subconsciously handicapping Ford a little bit, since she's up against an accomplished lawyer and judge, who's used to wordsmithing and massaging and sculpting his message, even in very grave situations. So all other things being equal, we might expect him to be more believable than her. If we are in fact handicapping her here, then we're being even more than more than fair, I believe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That didn't have to be the case here, but the Committee decided to limit it to that and lawyer letters, introduced exhibits which reduced to testimonials of sorts.



    Members on both sides of the committee, and the president declared her testimony compelling. Even the accused said he thought something traumatic happened to her, but it just wasn't him.

    So it lives or dies on the "him" part for her and his testimony in response. She was emphatic about remembering him. Her husband has said she named him long before his nomination. He says it never happened.
    I've been a victim of mistaken identity myself. I can tell you the utter futility and impotence you can feel. In my case my accuser no doubt had some traumatic or upsetting thing happen, and I didn't do it, but they were smaller than me, and intimidated by me as well. There was literally nothing I could do to prove my innocence. Nothing. I had to hope that people believed my own testimony, and it was only my character leading up to this trouble that wound up . . . not vindicating me, but permitting me to evade any further penalty. I can't say that everybody felt confident in my innocence, but it was relieving, that I wasn't further penalized, for doing nothing wrong.

    I know that being a victim of 'framing' is a tough situation to be in, but mistaken identity might in some ways be even worse, because the accuser is not lying; they really believe what they're saying. They are 100% credible and believable, since they do not even know they are wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That's certainly problematic for him. On the singular point I thought they both delivered believable testimony. He got into trouble outside of his denial and I'm not sure it won't sink him.


    I think that at the very least, the other alleged person in the room should have been compelled to give testimony. I'd also have had the husband there for cross. And every alleged material witness. Not that many, really, but we could have heard them and read them and so could the committee. I think it was a serious error of omission.
    I think we got a fair look at this particular 'video footage' here, 'rewound' it a few times and 'rewatched' it. What you're suggesting sounds more like a criminal trial to me, but ianal and I defer to your credentials and experience on the matter.

    All I need is someone who will obey the law wrt the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding; and frankly it doesn't have to be Kavanaugh.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

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