Herochat

Lindsey Graham...

Propeus The Fallen

  • ******
  • 3546
  • +32/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2018, 01:55:13 PM »
Whoa. Jeff Flake actually stood up for his principles.

I'll give him credit for that.

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2018, 02:54:01 PM »
A number of people have pointed out that Graham has gotten pissed off repeatedly at past confirmation hearings when he felt judges were subjected to unfair personal attacks. I think he’s absolutely genuine. Is it hypocritical that he’s pissed about personal attacks but was okay with the ridiculous blocking of Garland? Yes. But this sort of public, uncorroborated character assassination of a judge is actually a step worse than the handling of Garland.

If the Democrats had wanted to delay the hearing back in July by releasing this privately, that would’ve been a great idea. I honestly suspect that either the psychologist would’ve confirmed this was originally a memory about four attackers, or Kavanaugh would’ve dropped out, possibly leading to Trump nominating his other top pick who was less experienced and more socially conservative.

Public personal attacks like this should never happen to a federal judge. Has anyone heard of Samuel Kent? Unlike Kavanaugh, he faced corroborated allegations of sexual assault. They were handled by the proper investigative body, the Fifth Circuit’s judicial misconduct panel:

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability

He was then impeached and convicted. If there were evidence against Kavanaugh that is susceptible to investigation, it would be the duty of the DC Circuit to investigate. Not the FBI (which can only be told to investigate by Trump). Not the journalists writing the nonsensical clickbait articles about this.

Mark Judge should testify, though his testimony should be about this alleged event and others directly involving Kavanaugh. His cross-examination shouldn’t be a media circus about his self-described alcoholism or claims about him that don’t involve Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser should also testify about whether she truthfully stated that she never met Kavanaugh, or if she gave an incorrect answer due to alleged health issues, as Ford believes. The third alleged witness should also testify to confirm again his lack of memory of any such party. And be asked if he ever met Ford or Keyser. But all of this should’ve been handled in a non-public setting.

wouldnt say this worst then harland

with garland it was the republicans straight up not doing their job and ignoring the will of the people. a president gets 4 years

and when ask why their doing that..it was basicky fuck you thats why what you going to do about it bitch. the investigation shoukd be private but No investigation bad as well. now there rushing this

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2018, 03:02:25 PM »
also if it wasnt public not sure how much of an investigatiob in would be when even with in the public eye their not doing it

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2018, 04:15:08 PM »
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 04:47:14 PM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2018, 07:21:34 PM »
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.

well cant they still review it anyway just not make it public

and dinr neccesarly disagree. i am saying if this wasnt in the public eye there might of not been much of an investigation.  since it be less pressure. hell might not be one now eve. with the pressure. dude mught of been confirmed already without an investigation

superlurker

  • ***
  • 552
  • +23/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #50 on: September 28, 2018, 09:04:13 PM »
Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2018, 09:13:39 PM »
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.

well cant they still review it anyway just not make it public

and dinr neccesarly disagree. i am saying if this wasnt in the public eye there might of not been much of an investigation.  since it be less pressure. hell might not be one now eve. with the pressure. dude mught of been confirmed already without an investigation

Think about what you are saying. If Feinstein had told Republicans, do you really think they wouldn't have searched for anything that could be used against their nominee? Trump had other choices that could've quietly taken over. Or Feinstein could've handed it over the DC Circuit Court, which is the proper body for investigating judicial misconduct. I guarantee you they do not need public "pressure" to investigate serious claims of crimes.  Again, look up Samuel Kent.

Feinstein hand-picked Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, who is a partisan political actor. Katz immediately paid for a polygraph test for Ford with no control questions. Katz refused to let the Senators see Ford's therapist notes, yet somehow they were sent to the Washington Post. Ford didn't know or didn't remember how they got to the Post. Katz bought an extra week of time between now and the midterms by citing Ford's alleged fear of flying, while apparently failing to tell Ford that the Senators had offered to do the interview in private in California. At one point, Katz advanced the amazing request that the accused testify first, then the accuser responds without rebuttal.

These were clearly political games. I don't buy the idea that Feinstein's timing just coincidentally increased the chances that Democrats might be able to pull a Merrick Garland on the Republicans. By doing it with an issue this serious, they have dragged Kavanaugh and Ford's families through the mud in the most public way possible. And they're using it as a fundraiser.

On the medical records, yes they should be reviewed. If Mark Judge's medical records say Kavanaugh assaulted someone, that would be pretty compelling. If Ford's therapists notes really say four attackers, that's also pretty strong. Since Ford says the therapist must've written it down wrong, the therapist should be questioned. Here's an expert's take:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-very-very-certain-wrong-202229531.html

"Q: Is it possible that both witnesses are sincere?

A: "Absolutely. Certainly she came across as very credible and sympathetic, with most people wanting to believe her, and she seems to definitely believe what she is saying.

"He came across very angry and belligerent, and that is to be expected by someone who is convinced that he is being falsely accused.

"If he did do this, and he has no memory of it because it was so long ago, because maybe he was drinking more than usual and he forgot about that, he could honestly believe his denials."

- False memory -

Q: How commonly can a person misremember details of a real event?

A: "That would be very common. When you have an experience, especially a very upsetting experience... you often remember the core of the event -- you know it was an airplane crash and not a huge fire, and you can remember certain core details, but often many of the peripheral details will suffer.

"And then memory changes over the course of retelling with different audiences -- with the exposure to new information, other details can change.

"We have done studies where we show people an accident -- where a car goes through a yield sign and we suggest later it was a stop sign -- and many people will tell us they remember seeing a stop sign.

"Changing the details of an actual memory is a relatively easy thing to do. And it can happen spontaneously."

- 'Very, very certain, and wrong' -

Q: Does it make a difference if someone says they are 100 percent sure?

A: "Sometimes people are very, very certain and wrong. In DNA exonerations, you will find many instances where people start out being uncertain... they'll look at some photos and say, 'Well, that one looks the closest, I guess.'

"But by the time they get to trial, they've become vastly more certain, and therefore more persuasive.

"So you see in these cases how someone who is now very certain, was once not so certain. In those cases, we need to ask what made them become so certain
."

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #52 on: September 28, 2018, 11:14:08 PM »
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.

well cant they still review it anyway just not make it public

and dinr neccesarly disagree. i am saying if this wasnt in the public eye there might of not been much of an investigation.  since it be less pressure. hell might not be one now eve. with the pressure. dude mught of been confirmed already without an investigation

Think about what you are saying. If Feinstein had told Republicans, do you really think they wouldn't have searched for anything that could be used against their nominee? Trump had other choices that could've quietly taken over. Or Feinstein could've handed it over the DC Circuit Court, which is the proper body for investigating judicial misconduct. I guarantee you they do not need public "pressure" to investigate serious claims of crimes.  Again, look up Samuel Kent.

Feinstein hand-picked Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, who is a partisan political actor. Katz immediately paid for a polygraph test for Ford with no control questions. Katz refused to let the Senators see Ford's therapist notes, yet somehow they were sent to the Washington Post. Ford didn't know or didn't remember how they got to the Post. Katz bought an extra week of time between now and the midterms by citing Ford's alleged fear of flying, while apparently failing to tell Ford that the Senators had offered to do the interview in private in California. At one point, Katz advanced the amazing request that the accused testify first, then the accuser responds without rebuttal.

These were clearly political games. I don't buy the idea that Feinstein's timing just coincidentally increased the chances that Democrats might be able to pull a Merrick Garland on the Republicans. By doing it with an issue this serious, they have dragged Kavanaugh and Ford's families through the mud in the most public way possible. And they're using it as a fundraiser.

On the medical records, yes they should be reviewed. If Mark Judge's medical records say Kavanaugh assaulted someone, that would be pretty compelling. If Ford's therapists notes really say four attackers, that's also pretty strong. Since Ford says the therapist must've written it down wrong, the therapist should be questioned. Here's an expert's take:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-very-very-certain-wrong-202229531.html

"Q: Is it possible that both witnesses are sincere?

A: "Absolutely. Certainly she came across as very credible and sympathetic, with most people wanting to believe her, and she seems to definitely believe what she is saying.

"He came across very angry and belligerent, and that is to be expected by someone who is convinced that he is being falsely accused.

"If he did do this, and he has no memory of it because it was so long ago, because maybe he was drinking more than usual and he forgot about that, he could honestly believe his denials."

- False memory -

Q: How commonly can a person misremember details of a real event?

A: "That would be very common. When you have an experience, especially a very upsetting experience... you often remember the core of the event -- you know it was an airplane crash and not a huge fire, and you can remember certain core details, but often many of the peripheral details will suffer.

"And then memory changes over the course of retelling with different audiences -- with the exposure to new information, other details can change.

"We have done studies where we show people an accident -- where a car goes through a yield sign and we suggest later it was a stop sign -- and many people will tell us they remember seeing a stop sign.

"Changing the details of an actual memory is a relatively easy thing to do. And it can happen spontaneously."

- 'Very, very certain, and wrong' -

Q: Does it make a difference if someone says they are 100 percent sure?

A: "Sometimes people are very, very certain and wrong. In DNA exonerations, you will find many instances where people start out being uncertain... they'll look at some photos and say, 'Well, that one looks the closest, I guess.'

"But by the time they get to trial, they've become vastly more certain, and therefore more persuasive.

"So you see in these cases how someone who is now very certain, was once not so certain. In those cases, we need to ask what made them become so certain
."

think if the if Feinstein told the republicans they would of half ass it and rush it before anything could be used against him

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2018, 02:49:04 PM »
Rock, if there were probable cause that Kavanaugh attempted to rape someone, it wouldn't magically disappear because he's on the Supreme Court. You believe all the Senators would hatch an evil scheme to sweep a violent crime under the rug when they had multiple other candidates who are even more conservative? I find that as plausible as the theory that the Clintons secretly murder people.

Thanks to Feinstein's creation of a public spectacle, the media has ran with a Yale allegation where the accuser told others she wasn't sure it was Kavanaugh and every alleged eyewitness contradicted the claim. Then Avenatti threw into the mix a story about gang rapes from someone with a very colorful personal and legal history.

Kavanaugh's ex-girlfriend, a federal judge, just said the anonymous accusation that he assaulted her in 1998 was a lie:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/09/27/d-c-federal-judge-denies-anonymous-tip-alleging-kavanaugh-abuse/?slreturn=20180829144501

And the man behind the anonymous Rhode Island rape allegation has recanted his story:

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/jeffrey-catalan-newport-rhode-island-Kavanaugh/

And now USA Today has implied Kavanaugh is a pedophile. This sort of filth is why this should've been handled privately months ago. It was obvious that by airing the Ford accusation publicly at the last minute, a ton of politically-motivated accusations would follow. For that matter, we also had the two men falsely claiming they were the ones behind the "disputed incident."

Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

Graham seems to think dirty procedural tricks are acceptable if they get the job done, no matter how egregious. He either doesn't realize or doesn't care about the corrosive effect it has on having any logical debate or non-ideological discussion of issues in the future. I think this is part of what's made the Republican party become totally insane on economic and environmental issues.

Nevertheless, he's consistently gotten mad about personal attacks on judicial candidates. That seems to be a core principle for him.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

If all we had was the Senate testimony, I'd be about 50/50 on what happened. But unless Mark Judge has some testimony beyond "yes, I was an alcoholic" and "no, I don't remember anything," I think the original Washington Post story tips the scales of probability in favor of this being an inaccurately reconstructed memory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c03a899e61f

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."
 
"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions. . ."

"Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life."

There were multiple psychotherapy sessions. The notes saying it was four attackers seem to have come from the first session. Ford believes she had a 100% accurate flashbulb memory of the attack. The peripheral details faded, but she absolutely remembered her two attackers. There's evidence for flashbulb memories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

The problem is that the number of attackers isn't a peripheral detail. It's a core event. If the psychologist really heard her say there were four assailants at the first therapy session, this sounds more like an "edited" memory that became focused and more certain during multiple therapy sessions. Sessions that took place the same year in which Kavanaugh, a famous person with who lived somewhere in the area, was placed on Romney's short list. Unless I see more, I find that explanation more plausible than the idea the psychologist wrote it down wrong, Leland Keyser suddenly forgot that she ever met Kavanaugh due to health problems, and it's a coincidence that this was first mentioned during therapy sessions that coincided with Romney's nod to Kavanaugh.

The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

I completely agree with you on this. It wouldn't be uncalled for to point out the absurdity of senators calling him evil or a threat to the planet (before any of these stories surfaced). But he made a major mistake in terms of judicial legitimacy by using words like "Democrats," "the left," and the "Clintons." Maybe in the moment, he mistakenly thought naming an abstract group would've been better than calling out the Senators by name. I think that even if he'd specifically called out Senators by name, that would've been far preferable to naming them in the abstract with partisan labels.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 03:11:14 PM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2018, 03:23:57 PM »
Rock, if there were probable cause that Kavanaugh attempted to rape someone, it wouldn't magically disappear because he's on the Supreme Court. You believe all the Senators would hatch an evil scheme to sweep a violent crime under the rug when they had multiple other candidates who are even more conservative? I find that as plausible as the theory that the Clintons secretly murder people. Thanks to Feinstein's creation of a public spectacle, the USA Today just implied that Kavanugh is a pedophile.

Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

Graham seems to think dirty procedural tricks are acceptable if they get the job done, no matter how egregious. He either doesn't realize or doesn't care about the corrosive effect it has on having any logical debate or non-ideological discussion of issues in the future. I think this is part of what's made the Republican party become totally insane on economic and environmental issues.

Nevertheless, he's consistently gotten mad about personal attacks on judicial candidates. That seems to be a core principle for him.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

If all we had was the Senate testimony, I'd be about 50/50 on what happened. But unless Mark Judge has some testimony beyond "yes, I was an alcoholic" and "no, I don't remember anything," I think the original Washington Post story tips the scales of probability in favor of this being an inaccurately reconstructed memory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c03a899e61f

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."
 
"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions. . ."

"Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life."

There were multiple psychotherapy sessions. The notes saying it was four attackers seem to have come from the first session. Ford believes she had a 100% accurate flashbulb memory of the attack. The peripheral details faded, but she absolutely remembered her two attackers. There's evidence for flashbulb memories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

The problem is that the number of attackers isn't a peripheral detail. It's a core event. If the psychologist really heard her say there were four assailants at the first therapy session, this sounds more like an "edited" memory that became focused and more certain during multiple therapy sessions. Sessions that took place the same year in which Kavanaugh, a famous person with who lived somewhere in the area, was placed on Romney's short list. Unless I see more, I find that explanation more plausible than the idea the psychologist wrote it down wrong, Leland Keyser suddenly forgot that she ever met Kavanaugh due to health problems, and it's a coincidence that this was first mentioned during therapy sessions that coincided with Romney's nod to Kavanaugh.

The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

I completely agree with you on this. It wouldn't be uncalled for to point out the absurdity of senators calling him evil or a threat to the planet (before any of these stories surfaced). But he made a major mistake in terms of judicial legitimacy by using words like "Democrats," "the left," and the "Clintons." Maybe in the moment, he mistakenly thought naming an abstract group would've been better than calling out the Senators by name. I think that even if he'd specifically called out Senators by name, that would've been far preferable to naming them in the abstract with partisan labels.

dont think it involves a huge conspiracy . uf there a tape of him raping people yea they cant sweep thst under the rug. nor does that involve every senator agreeing.  and yes there othere conservative senators but they want it befor the midterm

but if it a few he said he saids (which a lot if these case are)thay actully needs an investigation to see if their not bs can see them half assing that and the public losing interest . public attention dpan can be shockly short. a kenndy drown a chick and he still beloved in a lot of places

ask yourself would flake ask for a probe if it wasnt this public attention. i mean there were ready to straight up not have an investigation even with the public outcry. an even then the investigation going to be a week. thats it. how us that not half assing it. do you think if he confirm there be any more looking into these claims. if the answer no how us that not being swept under the rug

two thing can be true, the dems playing politics but also there shoukd be an investigation and this shouldnt be rushed

i.meqn hell the president was accuse of 14 rapes breaking the emmolyments clause left and right and not much imvestigation there

superlurker

  • ***
  • 552
  • +23/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2018, 04:58:38 PM »
I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

To me, that event has multiple elements to it. If it happened, he was inebriated, and people have occasionally been known to do things they wouldn't otherwise while drunk. Of course, it may also be that the actions he took points to personality traits he's otherwise keeping in check. However, he was also 17 years old.

A 17-year old male brain still isn't fully developed, especially when it comes to some of the traits pertaining to doing stupid shit and taking dumb risks. In that regard, the brain isn't fully developed until much later, around 25 years of age. Meanwhile, the legal system has chosen some arbitrary cutoff points (like 18 years of age for some things, or 21 years of age for other things). What I'm getting at is that there should be some rethinking about how criminal justice in particular applies to young people. There is something to the "boys will be boys" line that some Republicans have trotted out, but I don't see them lining up to take that reasoning to its next logical step.

When it comes to anyone that does not belong to Kavanaugh's particular and privileged group, of course, there are no boys -- only criminal adults that are completely rational in their decision-making and ability to assess consequences, and hence responsible for their actions once some specific age is reached.

Kavanaugh today is likely a very different person than he was then. If he hasn't exhibited any similar behavior since (of which some are accusing him, but many of those accusations seem opportunistic), I don't think that should weigh decisively against him, if his judgement today is otherwise sound. He's not been nominated to be a saint. However, at this point, the picture as a whole makes him a very weak candidate overall.

Quote
The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

It doesn't even take outside influence. People make up their own false memories anyway. In this case, that swings both ways -- some of the yearbook references and some prior references from other sources seems to paint a very different picture of Kavanaugh than he did himself. Ford seems sincere, but as you note, her story has apparently changed over time, though it could also be true that the therapist's note-taking was sub-standard.

And I agree that the investigation is likely to lead to little being changed. It would have to take some pretty heavy evidence to sway the other side that one side or the other is correct, and that's just not likely to be found here. Even if all the witnesses suddenly swing heavily one way, that can be waved off as a conspiracy to pressure them somehow. I would even consider as possible a scenario where Kavanaugh is confirmed, only to later be impeached by a Democratic Congress once they find some appropriate nail to drive in.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2018, 04:50:57 PM »
I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

To me, that event has multiple elements to it. If it happened, he was inebriated, and people have occasionally been known to do things they wouldn't otherwise while drunk. Of course, it may also be that the actions he took points to personality traits he's otherwise keeping in check. However, he was also 17 years old.

A 17-year old male brain still isn't fully developed, especially when it comes to some of the traits pertaining to doing stupid shit and taking dumb risks. In that regard, the brain isn't fully developed until much later, around 25 years of age. Meanwhile, the legal system has chosen some arbitrary cutoff points (like 18 years of age for some things, or 21 years of age for other things). What I'm getting at is that there should be some rethinking about how criminal justice in particular applies to young people. There is something to the "boys will be boys" line that some Republicans have trotted out, but I don't see them lining up to take that reasoning to its next logical step.

When it comes to anyone that does not belong to Kavanaugh's particular and privileged group, of course, there are no boys -- only criminal adults that are completely rational in their decision-making and ability to assess consequences, and hence responsible for their actions once some specific age is reached.

Kavanaugh today is likely a very different person than he was then. If he hasn't exhibited any similar behavior since (of which some are accusing him, but many of those accusations seem opportunistic), I don't think that should weigh decisively against him, if his judgement today is otherwise sound. He's not been nominated to be a saint. However, at this point, the picture as a whole makes him a very weak candidate overall.

Quote
The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

It doesn't even take outside influence. People make up their own false memories anyway. In this case, that swings both ways -- some of the yearbook references and some prior references from other sources seems to paint a very different picture of Kavanaugh than he did himself. Ford seems sincere, but as you note, her story has apparently changed over time, though it could also be true that the therapist's note-taking was sub-standard.

And I agree that the investigation is likely to lead to little being changed. It would have to take some pretty heavy evidence to sway the other side that one side or the other is correct, and that's just not likely to be found here. Even if all the witnesses suddenly swing heavily one way, that can be waved off as a conspiracy to pressure them somehow. I would even consider as possible a scenario where Kavanaugh is confirmed, only to later be impeached by a Democratic Congress once they find some appropriate nail to drive in.

I agree with you on the science of brain development. My perspective is more about preserving the prestige of federal judges. There’s a bit of a mythical aura to the job. Like the English monarchy, part of the job involves maintaining that aura. For that reason, I do think Kavanaugh should apologize for his partisan comments, just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for her comments about Trump.

I don’t want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, either. My stance is based on the ideological shift it would bring and his time as a partisan actor on the Ken Starr team. But I do share Lindsey Graham’s concern that voting against him now will be seen as a “guilty” verdict on charges that, at this moment, fall way short of a preponderance of the evidence standard in a civil court.

In terms of his socioeconomic status, you’re right about the Republican double standard. Dennis Prager probably wouldn’t be nearly as generous to someone from a poor urban community as he is to Kavanaugh. The Republican stance on crime and policing overall has been really bad, especially Trump’s obsession with reversing Obama policies that just reflected common sense. On the other hand, I’ve been seeing left-leaning commentators suggest Kavanaugh is more likely to be a rapist because of his “entitled” and “privileged” upbringing, so his anger should be viewed through that lens. That’s a double standard of a different variety.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 05:01:52 PM by Rufio »

Thanos6

  • *****
  • 1566
  • +19/-17
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2018, 11:31:36 PM »
And now Graham is saying that if Kavanaugh gets voted down, he should just be renominated.

http://www.wistv.com/2018/10/02/graham-trump-re-nominate-kavanaugh-if-vote-fails/
Truten forever!

Propeus The Fallen

  • ******
  • 3546
  • +32/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Lindsey Graham...
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2018, 02:32:45 AM »
So...John McCain was Lindsey's moral compass? I mean, yeah, he's been bad--but now we're in a new territory of messed up.
r