Kavanaugh Hearing

Gorsuch is another Georgetown Prep graduate that was in powerful DC circles. The point is that the description that Dr. Ford provided about her attacker was vague and could fit a lot of graduates from Georgetown Prep.

 

I'll take that as a joke, chuckle a bit and move on.

More seriously, I'm guessing you understand the point. There is nothing in that video to indicate any one person protesting had a mental illness or was dangerous. Let alone all of them.

We should put that kind of Trumpian middle school name calling to bed. We're stuck with him but it doesn't mean we need to act like him. And in fact, it's against board rules.

If we're going to slap derogatory subjective labels on people, we need to have very sound basis for doing so. And that rarely exists for groups of people.

 

While Ford told her therapist and others in 2012, did she NAME Kavanaugh at that time?

 

Or it can be planting those memories in their mind. You do remember the stories where people were convicted of child abuse based upon investigators leading the children to believe they were molested, when no such thing happened. The human mind can be tricked.

 

You can't just apply common sense to everything and assume you're right.

Areas inside of public buildings can, in some cases, be considered public forums. For example, a classroom at a university can be a public forum, a limited public forum, and a non-public forum depending on what is happening.

 

After the defense rests, the State CAN present rebuttal testimony. IT CANNOT be the same witness offered in the state's case in chief saying what has previously been offered.

 

But you don't know if it is... You're asking me to research your defense for you...

You want to claim it's a public forum... why don't you do your homework and get back to me when you're done...

 

I suspect rejecting the outside counsel is the one that she will have a tough time selling as a reasonable demand.

One of the earlier objections to the hearing from her camp as well as a whole lot of Democrats (and media) is that she can't possibly get a fair hearing being questioned by 11 old biased white guys.

That makes it a little tough to offer any non-political explanation (i.e., anything other than "I want to maximize how bad the GOP looks") for why she is now insisting that the only way she will answer questions is if they are asked by the same 11 old biased white guys that they previously objected to. And the political explanation is not a good one for her, because admitting it comes awful close to casting testifying as being a political stunt.

 

I think it is clear that someone from Difi's staff talked to her and probably prepped her for what it was going to be like if her claim became public, hence the deletion and scrubbing of all her social media. I doubt they were able to do a deep vetting of her.

Judge was never named in any of her accounts as far as I have read and Dr. Ford never stated that her attacker was two years older than her. Her therapists notes also state she said it was 4 boys at the time.

 

Sure, it happens; but you're jumping through an awful lot of hoops here to make the story fit your conclusion. When you have to jump through all those hoops, it means your conclusion is not the most likely one. That's when you have to re-evaluate your hypothesis.

 

I'm literally not defending it. I'm saying "protests are legal and protected in public forums, which can include office spaces in some cases." I'm not saying this is the case in this particular scenario. I literally said I dont even know what happened.

 

Completely agree. You don't get to tell the committee how to ask their questions.

 

Attacking her reputation and not her allegations.

 

You're saying my logic isn't considering something you are not sure about...

I'm saying be sure about it and get back to me...

 

No she did not. The description of the attacker was something like: He attended an elite all boys school in DC and was in powerful DC circles.

 

If the drinking argument is being used to cast doubt on Kavanugh’s memory, then wouldn’t the same conditions cast doubt on her testimony? There is no slut shaming here. Only that what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

If being drunk makes Kavanugh an unreliable witness, then the fact that she was also a drinker would have the same effect on her testimony. Which is why her testimony said she only had one beer, instead of multiple beers. Because multiple bees would call her memories into question, just like it is being used to call Kavanaugh’s testimony into question. So the fact she was a heavy drinker just 3-4 years later would cast doubt in her testimony that she only had one beer. Logically speaking, of course, instead of emotionally.

 

Then it's a fair assumption to say Ford preferred to stay anonymous until either she, Feinstein or both agreed there were no other options. Even if it meant the timing of coming forward would look like a political stunt.

Ford said the therapist got a few details wrong in the notes. Four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom with Ford. Kavanaugh and Judge, and it was when Judge jumped on the bed that caused Kavanaugh to tumble a bit did it give Ford the ability and time to escape the room. So Ford did describe Judge to the therapist.

 

The not getting a fair hearing argument has nothing to do with who is doing the questioning. It has to do with who is the judge and jury. Making them ask the questions is absolutely a reasonable demand. It forces them to behave themselves.

 

Here in lies the problem with the name calling and insults. One side starts it, and continues it, and eventually the other side feels compelled to join in. Even when people are joking, it eventually becomes a worthless shit show.

Both of the quotes below were probably put out there as jokes, yet lawyer gets a disagree on his response. Where does this go but downhill?

This is why we have rules against name calling and insults. And why they are enforced.

I have probably indulged this conversation too far. There will be no further discussion trying to justify broad brushing groups of people as mentally ill or dangerous. If such a claim is made towards an individual it needs to have sound basis.

 

I'm saying you don't know what a public forum is, or how it applies in first amendment cases.