Kavanaugh Hearing

Well you are consistent. "So what exactly does the truth accomplish?" Just a waste of time, I guess.

 

Isn't there a reason why hearsay evidence isn't admissible in court? Even if people heard the story at school, that doesn't mean the story reflects what happened in that room as it's either her account of the events after the fact or changed significantly as it passed from person to person. It might be given some weight in terms of people knowing that something might have happened, but not much more than that.

 

Hearsay evidence isn't admitted at trial except in certain circumstances. Hearsay evidence is admitted in court in some other hearings. If people heard the story at school, it's damning. Now, you're going to have to argue that she made it up all those years ago for . . . what reason?

 

Yes, she should be far more afraid of talking to the FBI than congress, which is why her reticence to testify makes little sense to me. Not to mention that her lawyer should have been telling her from the beginning how things would play out, so it's not out of ignorance.

 

One explanation that would fit being reticent to talk to the Senate committee but not the FBI: she is telling the truth, this happened, and her primary worry is it getting buried in a pile of political gamesmanship where the nature of the investigation is designed to lead to a predetermined outcome. If that is the truth (and I dont know that it is), her reactions would be rational.

Remember that the original plan doesn't appear to have been to have her come out in public. She originally contacted them anonymously.

 

It's not damning really as it only proves someone, maybe her, said something to someone. Ultimately the credibility argument hinges more on whether you believe her, not some random other student. If her story is full of holes, it wouldn't really matter if someone said they heard about it 40 years ago. If her story is credible, then she doesn't need someone saying "I think I heard about that" to back it up. I think it's been repeated enough in this thread that people who experience this stuff normally don't come forward at all, so it really doesn't matter much either way.

 

It's absolutely damning. The argument is that this is a political hit. There is no argument that it was a political hit if she talked about it 35 years ago. Hell, the fact that she talked about it 6 years ago is damning enough. It lends absolute credibility to her allegations if her classmates heard about it in 1982.

 

Again, who is telling her she is going to get steamrolled in there because that's the least likely outcome. She apparently has knowledgeable people around her guiding her through the process, so where is that coming from? It's like she is listening only to partisan hacks on TV or something. She's supposedly a smart lady, but is trying to dictate the congressional investigation process and that's not how it works. That's not rational and someone around her should be telling her that. I think she contracted with the lawyer before she came forward, so all this should have been on the table before she ever said it was her. I am not making a judgement on her credibility or whatever, but the road she went down makes little sense to me.

 

https://politics.theonion.com/gop-officials-kavanaugh-shouldn-t-be-held-accountable-1829178729

 

So if a woman says she was raped by the Duke lacrosse team, that immediately makes the story true? It still comes down to whether you believe her account of what happened in that room or his account.

 

It's sad that you've retreated back to this. Are you now claiming that she lied in 1982? JFC.

 

I am just saying for a supposed lawyer, you ought to know the limitations of hearsay evidence. If she is lying now, why couldn't she have been lying in 1982? If she is telling the truth and her story is credible, what does someone else saying they heard about it and their version of the facts not lining up with hers add to it? So I guess I am sticking with far from "damning", but don't let that stop you from continuing your little Kavanaugh jihad.

 

And I am just saying for a supposed intelligent person, you ought to know how silly you sound. Why would she lie in 1982? She never brought charges.

That's what would make her story more credible than his. How do you not get that? If she was telling the same story 6 years ago and 36 years ago, there's no reason for her story to be false today. There's no motive for her to lie.

And don't let all of the facts undermining this being a political ploy stop you from continuing your little Blasey Ford jihad.

 

I think the communication disconnect here is that I'm discussing how they will treat the claim not her. I don't think that you are going to have Republican Senators calling her a slut. I think what is more likely is that they are going to try to make the hearing as minimally informative as possible. Each Republican Senator could have a long speech about how serious sexual assault is and thanking her for coming forward. Then they can ask a couple of questions that are completely non-informative. At the end, they say that they respect her and are glad she came forward but that they saw nothing to change their mind.

On the other hand, a thorough investigation is more likely to try to dig into the truth, whether it gets there or not and regardless of what it is.

Think of it like this: we are currently in a state of ambiguity. She is telling the truth, lying, or mistaken. One of the three is true. We don't know which one. She does (at least for option 1 or 2). If she feels that the true state is option 1 (truth), then she would prefer an outcome in which the state of ambiguity ends and she is seen as telling the truth. The committee, on the other hand, would likely order their preferred outcomes as lying, mistaken, continued ambiguity, then truth. So they would prefer continued ambiguity to finding out that she is telling the truth. An investigator would prefer all of the outcomes above ambiguity. If her ordering is truth, mistaken and ambiguity in some order, and lying, but she knows that she isn't lying, her interests are more aligned with an investigator than the Senate committee.

 

I’m sorry but it’s hard to believe a person with a PhD in Psychology believes anonymity would be maintained by a political partisan vehemently opposed to the political philosophies of a scotus nominee. There’s no way a rational, intelligent person can honestly believe that.

 

Feinstein did maintain anonymity. She broke it.

 

Sorry, Feinstein and Ford wasted their opportunity for any investigation by sitting on the allegation for so long. Tell the story, read the letter, whichever on Monday ..... then move on. No time for political games

 

So Ford outted herself. Seems as though she didn’t want to remain anonymous ...... which indicates she wanted recognition for trying to kill the Kavanaugh nomination.

 

It has been brought out several times she never mentioned Kavanaugh by name. She also said there were four people and now trying to change it to two.

 

The way they treat her claim will be purely based on how the public perceives her. They will have their pollsters call around after the fact and if they all like her, then the senate will be calling the WH and asking for Trump to pull the nomination. If the public doesn't find her story credible or there is some other information out there, then they might go ahead and vote. There is no way they they confirm if they aren't on safe ground with the election around the corner. So yeah it would be less informative than an investigation might be (if there is more to find), but it would also be more favorable to her. Her story gets more scrutiny with an investigation. Honestly the GOP is probably screwed here because unless she comes off as a total crackpot in reading her prepared statement, which is unlikely, they are probably facing enough public opposition to have to refuse to confirm. They can't grill her and there really isn't any other evidence or witnesses that confirm what happened in that room. So she will probably get the benefit of the doubt in the public eye.