| NightlyPoe said: Your surety is a result of a presupposition about her motivations for testifying. Suppose she had anti-progressive messages instead; are you saying you'd have more reason to believe her? 1. I gave a 17-point list detailing why I was sure of which the scrubbing of the history is only the first. 2. Of course if she were a federalist society credentialed lawyer she would have more credibility than a professor from a California university. Then she truly wouldn’t have a motivation for coming forward. And before you complain, “motivation” and the supposed lack thereof was constantly tossed around during the hearings. And since a political motivation would be the most likely cause for a false claim, it is relevant. Also, I didn’t put it on my original list despite certainly thinking it. This is a false dichotomy fallacy. The choice isn't public or anonymous. The choice was public or private. You don't need to be anonymous in private. In order to make the accusation, she would need to do so publicly. There is a dichotomy there. Nobody was suggesting the building itself wasn't secure. It's her travelling where she would be susceptible. That’s a novel complaint and does not show up anywhere in the complaints about security. Can't imagine it's all that likely that a would-be assassin would just so happen to be among the few dozen people on the flight or that flying incognito would present any difficulty. By all means, present your own source on that for once. The consequence of her fear of flying was delay. This is not the same as deliberately delaying. But she flew nonetheless. What is different about flying out between Sunday and Wednesday that would cause a delay in the hearings? This isn't evidence. The ubiquity of the knowledge is evidence. The unlikelihood of her lawyers would betray their client by withholding such knowledge even if she had gone dark and endanger their professional credentials is also evidence. In fact, put together, it comes to strong and damning evidence. It is incredibly unlikely that both these circumstances occurred. She got caught in a lie here. Oh I see you were offering useless testimony then. Got it. No, I am not offering testimony at all. I am stating basic psychology principles that even a layman might be familiar with. I see you’re trying to make it about me, but this is about the obviously false nature of her testimony. The fact is that it’s well known within psychology that memories of traumatic events are very much subject to reinterpretation after the fact. You don’t need to be an expert witness to know this. That a psychology professor would make such a basic error in order to support her testimony again cuts against her credibility. Doesn't seem strange at all to any of the experts who analyzed her testimony that I've seen. On its own, I would concede. But as I am making clear, it was a part of a pattern. You are welcome to your opinions of course. Once again, the oddness of the action cuts against her credibility. I think avoiding a particular person after having unwanted advances from them shows a change in action. Sure, if the two had frequently interacted in the past and then she suddenly stopped. But there’s no evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford were ever in the same room together in the first place or had met in any meaningful sense of the word. So there is no pattern of behavior to be disrupted. Were they in scenarios wherein this behavior should be apparent? Are you saying that you think it’s normal for people to only behave strangely around their attackers after a sexual assault? It tends to be a bit more generalized than that. Okay? Again, this is a part of the pattern that I’m laying out. You’re poo-pooing it all away because it’s not definitive in and of itself, but Ford’s memory being limited to things that cannot be proven or disproven speaks to a pattern of deception with a mindfulness of not saying anything that could put her in danger of perjury. All I'm saying is that memory is funny and we cannot control what gets banked. And I am saying that the things she remembers and things she doesn’t are awfully convenient. Well I know there's a certain group claiming Dr. Ford made up the entire event. Oh wait, you're in that group yourself. Yes, but the official party line was to state that Ford was merely mistaken about Kavanaugh’s identity. This is what public officials, talking heads, and even Kavanaugh himself stated. In fact, they went out of their way to praise her. They were afraid to directly challenge her specifically or the notion that she didn’t really want to stay anonymous or testify in private for political reasons where they could be accused of attacking a victim. Republicans were so afraid of ads being used against them in future campaigns that they hired an outsider to ask questions I didn’t mention it before, but her lawyers also demanded that the senators themselves question her. What reason she would have to demand that politicians question her is unknown other than to ensure such ads get made. If this were an actual trial though, any lawyer worth their salt would be all over her for the reasons I listed above and many more. They would have shredded her testimony so easily. I'm too lazy too look back but I'm pretty sure this chain was about the FBI not the senate so I don't understand your response. You don’t understand that there was no need to use the FBI as a middleman for conveying new information and evidence to the Senate? This is my mistake, I do apologize. Proximity and volume is important in this then. She did classify it as uproarious laughter so the expectation would be loud laughter. So loud as to be heard clearly enough that it’d be the thing she’d remember most? Was Judge’s commentary from the sidelines yelled so loud that it could be heard not only over music blaring to the point of drowning out cries for help, but comprehensible to a woman in the middle of fighting off an assault and scared that she would be suffocated to death? This seems reasonable to you? Right, but this is about only the materially relevant medical history. The senate would receive redacted records with only relevant facts exposed for their viewing, rather than Dr. Ford's entire medical history. Why would the FBI redact anything? They’re not in charge of deciding what’s relevant and keeping information from the Senate. And if they didn't want irrelevant material included, is there something wrong with the sharpies in Ford’s lawyers' office? Ah so you are of the position that Dr. Ford was lying? Hmm, yeah. We established that a week ago and it’s been repeated in each post since. But let’s get back to your belief that believing Ford is lying is akin to believing in a magical stork and certainly not a parsimonious explanation. What about this story has to be true? What part couldn’t be explained by Ford just being a partisan who made a false accusation in order to stop a man she disliked from joining the Supreme Court? She doesn't believe what she said, despite a polygraph showing otherwise? Polygraphs are pseudoscience. There’s a reason why they’re not admissible in court. Nobody is doing this. You can behave inappropriately without committing sexual assault. Kavanaugh wants us to believe he was perfectly behaved throughout his life while drinking copiously in his youth (most do), which is quite humorous indeed. 1. You very much are doing this. Because you’ve declared it magical thinking to believe that Ford wouldn’t be telling the truth based on Kavanaugh having drank beers in his youth. 2. The claim that Kavanaugh testified he’d behaved perfectly is pure political talking point and ignores the parts of Kavanaugh’s testimony where he stated that he was, indeed, not perfect as a young adult but never engaged in the type of behavior that he was accused of. None of those individuals meet the burden of "in their right mind" due to being emotionally comprised. Ford appeared composed and objective when giving testimony. Why would a false accuser be emotionally compromised and a real one objective? That makes no sense. Again, Ford’s testimony and the actions of her and her team of lawyers before and during the testimony paint a damning picture of her credibility. |
I have no idea why you would respond to me without quoting me but you don't present anything new here.
Your statement that your list is the reason you believe as you do, rather than an ad hoc rationalization for your presupposition is nothing but bullshit.
