Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[JimL]

He's interviewing for a seat on the SC of the U.S. and he lied numerous times to the U.S. Congress in their advise and consent hearing. Didn't you watch the hearing. Not only did he lie, but he was asked numerous times to request an FBI investigation to prove his innocence and instead of choosing to clear his name he cowered in fear and refused knowing that an investigation would most likely do him in. He also showed that he doesn't have the temperment to be a SC Judge, yelling and screaming like a child as if he is entitled to the seat, no questions asked.

[lilpixieofterror]

He's interviewing for a seat on the SC of the U.S. and he lied numerous times to the U.S. Congress in their advise and consent hearing. Didn't you watch the hearing. Not only did he lie, but he was asked numerous times to request an FBI investigation to prove his innocence and instead of choosing to clear his name he cowered in fear and refused knowing that an investigation would most likely do him in. He also showed that he doesn't have the temperment to be a SC Judge, yelling and screaming like a child as if he is entitled to the seat, no questions asked.

[Mountain Man]

To call someone a liar on this board requires a justification.

Yes, and I am fully justified. You said yourself that a false witness is someone who continues to repeat what they know to be untrue. I have told you, repeatedly, that there is no hatred in my statements. I took another look over your list of my quotes, and none of them can be reasonably construed as "hatred". At least two others in this thread took you to task for your mischaracterization of my comments:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post579404
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post579409

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: QuantaFille

There doesn't merely need to be justification, that justification MUST be presented in the same post as the accusation. You did not do that. Besides that fact, you are not being civil about it, so I have removed your repeated accusation here. Please tone it down.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Mountain Man]

Ford's husband say she identified Kavanaugh at the time. The notes reflect human error, they describe the assault, but there is nothing incredulous about the therapist taking notes during the session and later during the process of transcribing those notes into the record confusing the fact there were 4 boys in the house with the number participating in the assault.

The notes reflect a contemporaneous record of the therapy session. They contradict Ford's and her husband's after-the-fact recollection (based on Ford's later testimony, there were only three boys in the house, not four, so even your rationalization doesn't hold water). Unless there is good reason to think the therapist's own notes are in error -- and there isn't -- I'm more inclined to trust what was recorded at the time than what someone says five-years later.

But if you want to throw the therapist under the bus with the possibility of a transcription error then we can't even use her notes as evidence that Ford talked to her about being assaulted. Maybe Ford simply expressed a concern about something that could hypothetically happen at a party, and the therapist misunderstood it as her describing an actual incident.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, and I am fully justified. You said yourself that a false witness is someone who continues to repeat what they know to be untrue. I have told you, repeatedly, that there is no hatred in my statements. I took another look over your list of my quotes, and none of them can be reasonably construed as "hatred". At least two others in this thread took you to task for your mischaracterization of my comments:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post579404
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post579409

• Edited by a Moderator •

Oh good grief. You don't have a clue what the word means. There have been no lies. So If you continue, I'll report it and let those that adjudicate such things decide.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: QuantaFille

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[oxmixmudd]

The notes reflect a contemporaneous record of the therapy session. They contradict Ford's and her husband's after-the-fact recollection (based on Ford's later testimony, there were only three boys in the house, not four, so even your rationalization doesn't hold water). Unless there is good reason to think the therapist's own notes are in error -- and there isn't -- I'm more inclined to trust what was recorded at the time than what someone says five-years later.

But if you want to throw the therapist under the bus with the possibility of a transcription error then we can't even use her notes as evidence that Ford talked to her about being assaulted. Maybe Ford simply expressed a concern about something that could hypothetically happen at a party, and the therapist misunderstood as her describing an actual incident.

Sorry, the discrepancy in the notes is, using a term used previously, a 'nothing burger'. She sought help over this issue 5 years ago. The description from the therapist's notes confirm that. The husband remembers her identifying Kavanaugh. Either way, she needed help dealing with an assault. She is not making this up is the obvious conclusion. Whether her memory is accurate in terms of who the assailant was is not something that at the present time we have enough evidence to confirm. But your accusations said with absolute surety that she is lying are flatly refuted by those facts. There is no way to draw that conclusion from the facts as they are.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Sorry, the discrepancy in the notes is, using a term used previously, a 'nothing burger'. She sought help over this issue 5 years ago. The description from the therapist's notes confirm that. The husband remembers her identifying Kavanaugh. Either way, she needed help dealing with an assault. She is not making this up is the obvious conclusion. Whether her memory is accurate in terms of who the assailant was is not something that at the present time we have enough evidence to confirm. But your accusations said with absolute surety that she is lying are flatly refuted by those facts. There is no way to draw that conclusion from the facts as they are.

You only call these glaring discrepancies a "nothing-burger" because they contradict the narrative you so desperately want to be true. Based on the evidence -- the therapist's notes, Ford's own contradictory and sketchy narrative, and the flat denials by the witnesses -- any reasonable person would be compelled to conclude that Ford's claims are false.

[rogue06]

Ford's husband say she identified Kavanaugh at the time. The notes reflect human error, they describe the assault, but there is nothing incredulous about the therapist taking notes during the session and later during the process of transcribing those notes into the record confusing the fact there were 4 boys in the house with the number participating in the assault.

That discrepancy has little to no impact on the implications of the fact she sought help from a counselor over the event 5 years before the present revelation of it. The implication being that such an event occurred. She isn't making it up. If the husband volunteered confirmation that she identified Kavanaugh at the time when she couldn't remember if she did depends on his credulity, not hers. But the fact she admits she is unsure if she mentioned the name at the time goes directly to support her own credulity.

Jim

Or it could be that her story has changed. Several times. There are discrepancies our provable errors of fact with what she says now and what she said in her letter to Feinstein. The same goes for her interview with the Washington Post.

[Mountain Man]

Anticipating Democrat stall tactics, Sen. Orrin Hatch instructs the FBI to immediately notify the White House if any witnesses attempt to delay interviews or are otherwise uncooperative.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...witness-delay/

[Terraceth]

A few high profile stories in the news has no significance as to its commonality. I'll refer you to post #961 for statistics.

The problem with those statistics is that, from what I can tell, the percentage of cases that were deemed false were ones provably false. This does not take into account the many cases where someone made an accusation and there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosecution. While we can't really know how many of these were false accusations and how many were true that there wasn't enough evidence to bring to trial, it would certainly increase the number of false accusations by some amount.

[Terraceth]

He's interviewing for a seat on the SC of the U.S. and he lied numerous times to the U.S. Congress in their advise and consent hearing.

Examples, please? Too many times I've seen people accuse him of lying but the evidence for the claim either doesn't hold up at all or is too speculative to make a definite conclusion he lied.

Didn't you watch the hearing. Not only did he lie, but he was asked numerous times to request an FBI investigation to prove his innocence and instead of choosing to clear his name he cowered in fear and refused knowing that an investigation would most likely do him in.

If I recall correctly, he repeatedly said that if the committee wanted to do an investigation, they could. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee is fully capable of doing investigations without the FBI, which makes the constant insistence on FBI investigations a little odd. In fairness, the advantage of the FBI is that it's certainly a more neutral entity than the Committee, which right now is as thoroughly partisan as can be.

At any rate, saying that they could have the FBI do an investigation if they want to is hardly refusing it.

He also showed that he doesn't have the temperment to be a SC Judge, yelling and screaming like a child as if he is entitled to the seat, no questions asked.

While I do think there were some points where he went too far (most obviously his sarcastic response about blacking out, which to be fair he apologized for), this has still always struck me as a bit of a weird objection. Now, there are two possibilities. The first is that he's guilty, in which case his temperament is a lesser issue and can be disregarded. The second is that he is innocent. In the latter case, let us consider the situation. He's an innocent man who is being, out of nowhere, accused of a terrible crime that is being used by blatantly partisan politicians to deny him an office he is thoroughly qualified for while also hurting his reputation and his family. How exactly do you think he should act, particularly when he's now being grilled by said blatantly partisan politicians who had this information months ago and declined to investigate it privately before the hearings?

And while this is speculative, I can't help but think that the people complaining about his behavior would find something else to complain about if he acted differently. If he was completely calm, they'd probably complain that he wasn't taking the gravity of the situation seriously enough.

[Mountain Man]

The problem with those statistics is that, from what I can tell, the percentage of cases that were deemed false were ones provably false. This does not take into account the many cases where someone made an accusation and there wasn't enough evidence to bring a prosecution. While we can't really know how many of these were false accusations and how many were true that there wasn't enough evidence to bring to trial, it would certainly increase the number of false accusations by some amount.

And I point out, again, that our justice system depends on evidence, not on mathematical probability. That a certain percentage of accusations are true has no bearing whatsoever on any individual case, especially one where the accuser repeatedly contradicts herself and is refuted by her own named witnesses.

[Mountain Man]

Senator Tom Cotton:


https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018...h-and-destroy/

[JonathanL]

However, the larger observation of there being a "vein of anger" in Christianity - that I stand by. It is fairly obvious.

IMO there's not enough anger in Christianity. I think it would do wonders for clearing out all the kinds of poisons like fuzziness, slipperiness, self-righteousness and effeminacy that modern Christianity has been infected with.