Some Republican politicians have accused the Democrats of playing politics in the Kavanaugh hearings. This accusation is obviously true. But, it is true in a manner analogous to how an accusation by the Yankees that the Red Sox are playing baseball would be true: it is the game that is being played by both and to pretend otherwise would be absurd.
This does not, however, entail that what the Democrats are doing is not morally wrong. To conclude that the Democrats are not wrong to play politics with a hearing because the Republicans also play politics with hearings would commit a fallacy, possibly two. If the “reasoning” is that the Democrats are not wrong because the Republicans do it as well, then this would be an ad hominem fallacy. Just asserting another person (or group) also did something does not entail that doing it is thus justified. To illustrate, if someone stole my bike and I responded by stealing their laptop, this would not make my stealing any less wrong. Naturally, this could lead far afield into a discussion of the ethics of vengeance, but that is a matter for another time. It suffices that the Democrats cannot get moral cover simply by asserting that the Republicans do bad things.
If the “reasoning” is that the practice of playing politics is commonly done, then this would be the common practice fallacy. Even if a practice is common, this does not entail that it is good or right. For example, people commonly cheat on their partners, but this does not make it right. But, to accuse the Democrats of playing politics is not much of an accusation. As noted above, playing politics is what politicians do and hence more is needed to claim that the Democrats are being truly wicked.
A more serious criticism of the Democrats is that they have accepted Blasey’s claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her because they have unethical motives. For example, Senator Lindsey Graham launched into a ferocious assault on the Democrats’ wicked ways. Kavanaugh also expressed fury against the Democrats for their alleged misdeeds and endorsed the notion that they have been wickedly conspiring against him. This situation raises a general issue about the relevance of motives to the truth of a claim and a specific issue about whether the Democrats’ motives are relevant to the truth of Blasey’s accusation.
The motives of the Democrats are, obviously enough, relevant to morally assessing them. If they do not care about Blasey or sexual assault and are merely exploiting her for their own political advantage, then these motives would indeed be wicked. Even if they did care, if their main motivation was political gain, then this motive would be morally problematic. However, if they do care about Blasey and sexual assault and are sincerely concerned about the character of the nominee, then their motivations would be morally commendable. Their motivations are, however, irrelevant to the moral assessment of whether their actions and their consequences are morally wrong or not. After all, a person might take a morally good action for wicked reasons or do something that has terrible consequences from laudable motivations. To illustrate, a person might kill a mass shooter and save a crowd of people because they have long wanted to slaughter a person and not from any desire to protect others. To illustrate the second point, horror movies are replete with those who are trying to do good, but who end up creating monsters.
Motives can, of course, be difficult to sort out, in part because rational people try to claim laudable motivations even when they are moved by baser reasons. As such, a proper assessment of motivations requires considering not only a person’s words but also their deeds. For example, those who have quickly exploited the Kavanaugh situation to aid in their fundraising for upcoming campaigns should have their motives questioned.
While it is tempting to see all politicians (Democrats and Republicans) as having nothing but wicked motives, there are presumably at least some of them who have decent motives. And, of course, most people see their side as being good. Fortunately, this essay is not focused on sorting out who is naughty and who is nice, but on the relevance of motives to truth. It is to this that I now turn.
Those who loath the Democrats might be tempted to accept the following argument:
Premise 1: The Democrats assert that Kavanaugh assaulted Blasey.
Premise 2: The Democrats’ have immoral motivations to make this claim.
Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is false: Kavanaugh did not assault Blasey.
While the content might make this emotionally appealing to some, it needs to be assessed in terms of the quality of the logic. Put in an abstract form, here is the reasoning:
Premise 1: Person P makes claim C about Subject S.
Premise 2: Person P’s motivation to assert C is immoral.
Conclusion: Claim C is false.
For example:
Premise 1: Sally tells Sam that deer ticks carry Lyme disease.
Premise 2: Sally’s motivation in saying this is to torment Sam, a hypochondriac who has found a tick on his skin; this is an immoral motive.
Conclusion: Therefore, deer ticks do not carry Lyme disease.
Presented this way, the lack of connection between the premises and the conclusion should be evident: the ethics of a person’s motivation to make a claim have no relevance to the truth of that claim. This sort of “reasoning” can also be seen as an ad hominem: because of an attack on the person’s motivations, the claim they make is rejected. It must be noted that this matter is distinct from making a moral assessment of the person. A person’s motives are relevant to moral assessment and one cam justly suspect that a person who routinely acts from wicked motives is a bad person.
At this point it might be wondered if a person’s motivations are always irrelevant to assessing their claims. On the one hand, they are irrelevant to the truth (or falsity) of their claims. On the other hand, a person’s motivations are relevant to assessing their credibility in making claims. This matter will be addressed in the next essay in the series.
“a manner analogous to how an accusation by the Yankees that the Red Sox are playing baseball would be true: it is the game that is being played by both and to pretend otherwise would be absurd.”
I think this is an overly simplistic, and somewhat inaccurate view of what’s going on. The Democrats are not merely “playing politics”. They were “playing politics” when they asked for mountains of paperwork during the confirmation hearings, in an effort to delay the hearings. They are “playing politics” when they go around pressing colleagues for “no” votes, offering tempting political quid-pro-quo in return.
In both football and baseball, as in other sports, the “rules” are less about what’s in the book, and more about what you can get away with when the referees or umpires aren’t looking. Or even something that you might do where the benefits outweigh the penalties.
Consider, for example, a late hit in football. In 2017, during a game between the New England Patriots and the Buffalo Bills, New England’s tight end Rob Gronkowski delivered a late hit to Tra’Davious White, who had just intercepted a pass. White was on the ground, out of bounds, and the play was over. He was not looking, his defenses were down, and Gronkowski dropped an elbow on him, giving him a concussion.
Gronkowski was suspended for one game – but White was seriously injured and out for much longer.
Despite the fact that the Gronkowski hit was on national TV and seen on multiple broadcasts from multiple angles, and despite the fact that Gronkowski was suspended, offered a public apology to White, and despite the fact that the incident was decried by Patriot’s coaches and owners, and by league officials and commentators – Patriots fans still defended Gronkowski and insisted he did nothing wrong.
This is the game that the Democrats are playing. Not by the same rules of politics, not by the standards of “civility” that the Republicans are often accused of violating – they are playing by their own rules. They have calculated the risks, and know that if a few of them have to go down for this or if they destroy people’s lives or careers, the long-term benefit will be worth it if they win. Better yet, they live in a world where their base will approve of whatever methods they employ, because like rabid football fans, they know that “anything goes” as long as there’s a “1” in the win column for their team.
Premise 1: The Democrats assert that Kavanaugh assaulted Blasey.
Premise 2: The Democrats’ have immoral motivations to make this claim.
Conclusion: Therefore, the claim is false: Kavanaugh did not assault Blasey.
Yes, you’ve said this before. I don’t think anyone is making this case except you. As I said in my previous post, this is not about proving anything – in fact, it’s probably a pretty good question as to why none of the thousands of hungry lawyers in Washington have taken one of the accusers under their wing and filed charges against Kavanaugh – and the answer is that they know full well they will never be able to prove anything.
It’s not about neat little syllogisms, it’s about swaying public opinion and inciting the mob, which they have done very successfully. They have delivered a late hit in such a way as to destroy a man’s life and career, based on a completely un-provable accusation.
The same thing was attempted in the infamous Duke lacrosse incident ten years ago. Very few people believed that they were innocent – and those who stood by them (like their coach, who was wrongfully terminated as a result) were shunned and excoriated, and the victims of hateful rants like the one posted by whitewolf in his comments on your last post. It had all the right elements – racism, privilege, sexual assault – and the entire case was, as Joe Biden might have said, was “storybook” – rich, white, elite young men who took advantage of a young African American woman that they had hired to come and perform for them. Except for one small detail – it never happened.
That case went to court and was proven. No one wants this case to go to court – that’s not what it’s about. It’s not about justice in the legal sense, it’s about people’s twisted sense of justice in a vengeful sense.
Rahm Emanuel once famously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before”.
Some say that this means that when faced with a crisis, people rise to the occasion and draw on resources they never had. Others believe that it means a crisis can be exploited, because the general public cannot keep their heads.
We’re in a crisis in this country. We hate each other for a whole host of reasons – and true to Emanuel’s words, politicians like to jump on that crisis and appeal to voter’s emotions. And it’s one thing to exploit the issues, it’s yet another to foment them, to fan the flames, and to dig up issues and make sure they are presented for maximum impact regardless of the personal consequences suffered by those who are exploited or condemned.
https://youtu.be/iPkJH6BT7dM?t=2m21s
The morality of the Democrats needs to be assessed far beyond whether or not they care about Blasey, or what their motives are in believing her. Their morality needs to be assessed based on the nature and extent of their actions as well.
I did mention in my last post that Blasey did not want to come forward and make a public spectacle. For example, Grassley contacted her attorneys (those recommended by Dianne Feinstein) and offered to fly to California and hold private hearings with her – and yet she has stated, under oath, that this was not made clear to her. I think there ought to be an investigation on that point. In whose interest were these attorneys acting? Blasey’s? Feinstein’s? The Democrat party?
A series of private conversations and a low-key FBI investigation would have served the truth far more than what’s going on now – and it would have been a process that was legal, justified, and respectful of both Blasey and Kavanaugh. But that’s not what they wanted, is it? I’m sure that Maxine Waters is looking at the same video whitewolf posted and muttering, “You go girl!” under her breath. This is not “playing politics”. This is more like the exploitation, uninformed public outrage, and yellow-journalism that helped push the US and Spain into war with Cuba and the Phillipines in the late 19th century. Thousands of people died in that war – but hey, the US acquired a nice bit of territory overseas, so it was a win, right?
But if you want to play the ridiculous syllogism game, try this one on for size –
Premise 1: Kavanaugh is a privileged white male
Premise 2: He is being accused of sexual misconduct by a woman
Conclusion: Therefore, the accusation must be true.
Or how about this one –
Premise 1: It is true that many women are sexually assaulted by men
Premise 2: A woman is making a claim that she was sexually assaulted by a man
Conclusion: Therefore, no additional evidence is necessary; the accusation must be true.
Ford’s lawyer is a political operative and extremist. Allegedly her refusal to tell Ford that committee members were willing to fly to her is being investigated by the DC bar association.
However, consider the fact that Ford did know of the offer, but she knew that it was a critical point, given the fact that she lied about her fear of flying. She was not quit sure of how to answer the question of committee members flying to her, so she said she didn’t know about it. Which is why her lawyer immediately pulled the mic away from her.
I’ve not seen anything in the mainstream about that; just posts in many junk “news” sites. Do you have a link to a credible news source? Fox news is fine; there actual news news is credible.
What is the impact of the fear or lack of fear of flying on the issue at hand?
This was my original source. As I stated “allegedly”. I asked this person for confirmation. Note that his other two assertions have been confirmed. The Republican senators have stated one of their greatest concerns was that Ford said she did not know of their offer. Seems like something they would aggressively pursue.
https://twitter.com/KMCRadio/status/1046505561309810688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1046505561309810688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftruepundit.com%2Fwhy-theres-a-good-case-for-sanctioning-christine-blasey-fords-lawyers%2F
Person has been refererred for charges in making false accusations in a letter to Congress re Kavanaugh sexual assault.
Also, Senator Tom Cotton has stated that Diane Feinstein has been referred for Congressional investigation re leaking of Ford’s letter, per Politico article.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/cotton-feinstein-ford-leaked-letter-854019
In summary: Not 100% confirmed; seems quite possible; other assertions this source made proved to be true.
Original answer stuck in filter because of multiple links. I removed the link to Politico article, but here is the same post without link. Google the article form Politco concerning Senator Cotton re investigation into Feinstein.
This was my original source. As I stated “allegedly”. I asked this person for confirmation. Note that his other two assertions have been confirmed. The Republican senators have stated one of their greatest concerns was that Ford said she did not know of their offer. Seems like something they would aggressively pursue.
https://twitter.com/KMCRadio/status/1046505561309810688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1046505561309810688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftruepundit.com%2Fwhy-theres-a-good-case-for-sanctioning-christine-blasey-fords-lawyers%2F
Person has been refererred for charges in making false accusations in a letter to Congress re Kavanaugh sexual assault.
Also, Senator Tom Cotton has stated that Diane Feinstein has been referred for Congressional investigation re leaking of Ford’s letter, per Politico article.
In summary: Not 100% confirmed; seems quite possible; other assertions this source made proved to be true.
Re your question on the fear of flying. It was done to delay the process until Thursday, and possible to continue formulating and practicing the story. Placed enormous pressure on Republicans to extend the process/ deploy FBI.
Had they been able to talk to Ford on Monday, as they offered there would have been time to assess credibility.
Note that she did get the request to fly to DC on Monday, but says she DID NOT get the info on committee members’ willingness to fly to her.
Well, if the fear is a lie, then there is a problem.
But, as someone who is terrified of flying yet still flies, her story is appealing.
About flying.
Mike, some corroboration she has no fear of flying.
Also says she steals money. https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770
Her story about the door is also falling apart.
Now, now….is that from OFFICIAL NEWS SOURCES who always try very hard to be right and vet all sources of information or from some junk news sites? Blasey is so credible. The claim that she is a cool political operative lying calmly before the cameras seems wildly implausible. Wildly implausible, do you understand? Unlike OFFICIAL NEWS SOURCES.
The Stupid. Can it possibly get any thicker? Yet every time I ask this question, The Stupid rises to the challenge.
How so?
The door may have been built in 2008 as part of a renovation to accommodate renters, not in 2012 as some believed.
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/02/building_documents_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html
But is the author of the letter credible? Remember that memo Dan Rather decided to stake his career on? Just because a reporter has a document that says X, it does not follow that X is true.
Only saying these are lines of inquiry to follow. Seems like credit card data as well as further follow-up on the polygraph thing could happen.
A bit weird to say she steals money; but such an ad hominem would certainly disprove her claim.
More on the fear of flying. Well flying east anyway. Must be a long walk/swim home:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript
But she is totes believable, so credible. The claim that she is a cool political operative lying calmly before the cameras seems wildly implausible. This is obvious to anyone who wishes to do the analysis.
The question is, if Katz is not being investigated based on Ford’s assertion that she did not relay the info, why not?
DC Bar Rule 1.4(b), “Communication,” provides that “A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”
Your point about this being well beyond the scope of “playing politics” is quite correct. It is criminal. Several criminal inquiries are already underway as a result of Democrat methods.
Let us consider these possibilities, some of which are not in dispute:
1) Ford is lying
2) Dems at least suspect she is lying. There is substantial evidence that the Dems don’t think Kavanaugh committed assault, the least of which is not the fact that no serious figures from the committee or in media are talking about the assault anymore–only his drinking and alleged ice throwing in college,,
3) Dems don’t really care that she is lying or that Kavanaugh is likely innocent
4) Dems have orchestrated the presentation of her lie for maximum political impact. Even if she is or thinks she is telling the truth, no one disputes that the Dems have orchestrated this for maximum political impact.
5) Ford is receiving laundered money via GoFundMe accounts
6) Ford’s lawyer, Katz was referred to Ford by Feinstein. She knows that Katz is an aggressive, progressive operative.
7) Feinstein’s office leaked Ford’s letter to the media.
This is not “politics”.
This is a criminal conspiracy. This is corruption. The key of course if finding out if Ford is knowingly lying. This is a difficult task, but not impossible. Her story is sufficiently vague, and if she makes a error of fact, the Left falls back tot he argument of the fallibility of memory and the length of time that has transpired. However, emails, texts etc can hold a lot of answers, and are subject to subpoena. The fact that her brothers of parents have not come forth to support her indicates that they may be suspicious.
Sure; it is true that the Democrats are playing politics-that is the game in the Senate. I do raise the matter of whether they are doing something worse. But, even if the Democrats are up to wicked deeds, this is still independent from Blasey’s claim. Now, if it could be shown that Blasey herself is up to no good and is lying, then that would obviously disprove her claim against Kavanaugh.
To use an analogy, plenty of racists back the idea of stronger borders because of their racism. But this evil motive does not disprove the assertion by others who argue in favor of strong border. If it were shown that all the arguments for strong borders were awful and based on lies, then that would be a different matter.
On my way in to work this morning, I thought of another analogy that I wanted to express. It’s probably a lot more close to home than the Yankees Red Sox one, and even the New England Patriots one – so maybe you can relate to it.
You and I play this game called “Academia”. We know the rules, and we know the risks.
Let’s say for example that you have frequent ideological conflicts with your dean and your department. Because you have tenure, you are able to voice your opinions and argue your points without fear of reprisal – after all, that’s what tenure is about, right? You are a thorn in the side of your dean and your department, but you’re fighting the good fight and it’s all for the benefit of your students, so you are justified.
So it comes to pass that you are up for a promotion, or perhaps a plum appointment to the Academic Senate or some other institutional governing body. The dean, as predicted, opposes this appointment, and does everything in his power to prevent you from getting it. He thoroughly scrutinizes your academic record, your research, your publications, the way in which you handled grant money, your student evaluations – everything. The worst that he is able to find is that your publications, as popular as they may be, are diametrically opposed to his own take, but that’s academia, right?
So, in true academic/political form, the dean starts rallying supporters to speak out against you, or to write negative recommendations to whatever governing body is making that decision. Again, part of the game, right? You are probably doing the same thing – cultivating letters of recommendation.
Suddenly, someone mentions to the dean that at a previous school, many years ago, you were the subject of a Title IX complaint, which (for those uninitiated) is a very broad category of sexual harassment. It covers everything from overt acts involving power and touching to minor infractions like making an inappropriate comment within earshot of someone you did not intend to reach. Anyway, here’s this complaint. Was there action taken? Don’t know. Is there a letter somewhere in a sealed file? Don’t know. When you left that school and came to this one, was it a forced departure? Don’t know. Did it turn out to be a fraudulent complaint that resulted in no action, or a disciplinary letter in the file of the accuser? Don’t know.
So the question is, what should happen? You’ve been at your school for 30 years, and have put together a stellar record. The dean, who opposes you, may just have what he needs to prevent your appointment. What should happen?
Some might say “nothing”. It happened a long time ago, the allegations are stale and poorly remembered.
But – the dean decides to investigate, and the person who made the initial allegations is willing to step forward. Maybe there was truth to this and she was unhappy with the result, and still feels victimized. Maybe it was really nothing, but she has an interest in the academics of your department and, like the dean, opposes your point of view.
OK, so maybe the dean’s motives are political or somewhat less than pure – but there is enough reason to pursue the investigation, and despite the fact that it happened so long ago, it can be construed as being relevant to this current appointment.
So – here you are – you know the truth as no one else. Maybe you were guilty of some infraction, but you’ve moved on with your life. Maybe you were not guilty and everyone else has moved on.
How does the “game” proceed from here?
According to the rules, Title IX accusations are dealt with swiftly and with confidentiality. Private meetings are held with an assortment of school officials and HR personnel, and conclusions are drawn. A great deal of attention is paid to the potential explosion of an allegation like this, so while the investigation is underway, people sign confidentiality agreements, non-retaliation agreements, NDA’s and many other things. If the investigation proves that the allegations are true, you may be asked to step down from the running for that position, you may be asked to step down from your current position, or you may be asked to resign – depending on the severity of the result.
But instead of following these rules – the dean decides that because the allegation happened so long ago, and maybe the HR department at the time could reach no conclusion, that it would be better served to make a public spectacle of you. He calls for a college-wide assembly to publicly question you and your accuser about this. The assembly is live-streamed over the college intranet, and suddenly everyone on campus has an opinion, and opinions are virulent and vicious on both sides. Again, no conclusions are reached, no new information is revealed – but suddenly everyone on campus has an opinion. Women spit at you as you walk to class. Your enrollment is down in your classes, drawing the scrutiny of your department chair. Maybe you receive fewer internal grants as you used to, or are asked for your input on important matters far less. Even your wife (I know, you’re not married – but “pretend”) receives threatening or harassing phone calls.
At the same time, you have your supporters – but life is different. The university has now divided into two camps, and they hate each other like never before.
Here’s the thing – even if this public tribunal turns up nothing, you decide that because of public opinion and all the vitriol on campus you would prefer to leave and get a fresh start – but you find that no other institution wants to even touch your resume. You are ruined.
The games we play have rules, but power is power. And we are all victims of those who have managed to take it – because they take it by any means necessary. And those of us who play by the rules get left behind, with no one to complain to.
I have seen similar scenarios play out in reality.
For past misdeeds, I follow the principles I laid out in my essay on that subject. As such, if Kavanaugh did the misdeeds, he could still be suitable for the job provided that he repented and became a better person. If he did nothing wrong, then he obviously has nothing to repent for and all that matters is who he is now and his qualifications.
If he did the misdeeds and has been lying about it, then that is another matter. While he still might not be held accountable now for these alleged drunken misdeeds of his youth, lying about them now as an adult would suffice to disqualify him for the job.
If Blasey is lying and the Democrats know it, then Kavanaugh’s rage is justified. While the Republicans were wrong to run out the clock on Obama, bringing up false charges for political purposes would be far worse.
What makes this situation problematic, as the Fox folks noted, is that Blasey is so credible. The claim that she is a cool political operative lying calmly before the cameras seems wildly implausible. This is why I think the FBI investigation is a good idea-if there is evidence to clear or condemn Kavanaugh, they stand the best chance of finding it. If a thorough investigation fails to provide support one way or another, then the rational conclusion would be to suspend judgment. This leads to the question of what the presumption should be in this case. If it was a criminal trial, there would be reasonable doubt and Kavanaugh should be found innocent. But, job interviews are a different matter. I’ve run several search committees and if there is a situation where it is, say, 50/50 or so for the person being “guilty” and there are many other qualified candidates, I would recommend going with a less problematic candidate.
But, I am aware that this would seem unfair and could lock a person out of opportunities. For example, think of the people who have a criminal conviction in their youth-they can be locked out of good jobs (or any jobs), even if they would be great at the job. In Florida, they can lose the right to vote forever. As such, I am certainly concerned about people being treated unfairly because of doubts about them.
“…What makes this situation problematic, as the Fox folks noted, is that Blasey is so credible. “
What makes this situation problematic is that her credibility, or lack thereof, is a matter of public opinion in the first place.
In listening to interviews with FBI personnel familiar with this kind of investigation, the public familiarity and public opinion on this matter is very problematic for them. When they go to interview potential witnesses, they cannot be sure that what witnesses “remember” is their own, unimpeded recollection or a memory that has been tainted by the news, by Facebook, by the fact that the details of this investigation are in their faces all the time. This is a big problem.
Personally, I think that Feinstein knew this. There is no question in my mind that she, with the resources she has at her disposal, would not have conducted her own preliminary investigation to see if this issue “has legs”. It is very likely that she and her team weighed the evidence, the credibility of the parties, the credibility and availability of witnesses and corroborating evidence and came to the same conclusion that we all have – that the claim is simply unprovable.
As such, a quiet, private investigation outside of the scrutiny of the public and the media would not accomplish what they need. As Joe Biden said, the results of the investigation would be meaningless – especially if they showed nothing at all.
I believe that it is for this reason that she embarked on her “Plan B”, which was to skip any kind of legal process altogether and whip up public opinion into such a fury that Kavanaugh would not only not be confirmed, he would be destroyed.
The public should never have been informed of this, and the hearings most definitely should not have been aired. The FBI investigation at this point cannot be reasonably trusted no matter what they turn up – but even that doesn’t matter at this point.
If the FBI turns up witnesses that corroborate Ford’s story, their findings will forever be suspect because of the vast amount of information the witnesses have had for the last several weeks, including their familiarity with public opinion. Were the blank spots of their
If the FBI turns up nothing, well, then, they are just “Surrogates” of the Trump administration – so what did anyone expect?
It is a heavily tainted process at this point. Like the tenure example I gave earlier, this is a no-win for this entire country. I only hope that whitewolf is correct that there are criminal investigations being conducted against Feinstein and the others who orchestrated this whole thing.
People are saying she sounds credible because they are afraid to say otherwise. “Victim blaming” would be the charge. Most major news papers have headlines highlighting “while male privilege” on this matter. Many are using extremely derogatory language toward Kavanaugh and white men in general. Most normal people doubt her story. It’s just like the Soviet Union where everyone looked around thinking they were the only ones who thought their country was nuts, but no one said anything.
She did not sound credible to me. Her whiny speaking was fake. Her story makes no sense. She has changed it on several occasions. She’s submitted three pieces of written evidence: psychiatrist notes, letter to Feinstein, and polygraph letter. All note different numbers of people. Even different times. Her witnesses said they don’t know what the hell she’s talking about. What exactly would non-credible look like to these people? Meanwhile, Kavanaugh carried the nuclear launch codes for Bush (really) has 6 FBI SSBI background checks, swears with confidence to God this didn’t happen. many on Left think that anyone with the balls to get up in front of the senate and lie, paradoxically MUST be telling the truth. Joe Friday says: Just the facts maam. No evidence, I don’t believe your incredible assertions. Thus, you are not credible.
She’s lying. I understand the lib mindset. They hate anything that is stated with any certainty. Over and over I have heard the “well it could have happened” argument. They cite zero evidence. This shows a significant difference is the epistemology of liberals from myself, and frankly explains a lot of their policy decisions. It’s the “monkeys could fly out of my ass” argument. Yes they could, but we don’t wreck people’s lives on the chances that in some imaginary universe, Kavanaugh is a rapist.
Well, yes. Outside of the academy and professions, that is what political credibility is.
I think people are confusing credibility with sincerity.
Sincerity is, however, part of credibility.
“I have seen similar scenarios play out in reality.”
So have I. It’s terrifying, isn’t it? And it is becoming more and more mainstream. Why bother trying to prove something when you can just destroy them based on allegations?
It is unbelievable that anyone can support this process – justifying it by saying, “Well, if he did what he’s accused of …”
People who are detained for capital crimes and felonies are treated better than this. Investigations are kept secret, sensitive information is sealed for their own protection. Misdeeds by the police or investigators result in evidence being disallowed or the alleged criminal let free – even in the midst of a preponderance of evidence.
Further, if a crime is reported in the paper and receives a lot of publicity, the defendant is usually successful in obtaining a change of venue, so he can be tried in a location where he has a better chance of getting a fair or unbiased trial.
Kavanaugh has been convicted of NOTHING, not a SINGLE ALLEGATION has been shown to be true, yet his class at Harvard that he’s been teaching for ten years has been canceled. Amid much speculation, his faculty page redirects to the general faculty directory and no one is talking. In what world is this fair or correct? Regardless of the outcome of any investigation or any confirmation hearing, he will never get his reputation back – in the eyes of the public he is a wicked, evil demon.
And he has no real recourse within the law, except to sue the pants off of everyone involved in creating this scandal.
In an academic Title IX complaint, the accused AND the accuser must sign an NDA, and allow HR to handle everything. If the accuser speaks out, they are liable for severe penalties for violating the rights of the accused.
Not so in politics, I guess.
The presidency of Bill Clinton taught us that extramarital oral sex is not really “sex”, and maybe not even infidelity. We learned that it’s OK for someone in a position of power to exploit and abuse women, and that power trumps everything. We learned that it’s OK somehow for the offender’s wife to threaten women with legitimate accusations out of one side of her mouth, while “Standing up for women everywhere” out of the other.
Later we learned that it’s OK if a current president was a complete stoner in college.
Later still, we learned that the above are only OK if the offenders are Democrats.
And now we learn that it’s definitely OK to completely ruin someone’s life on the basis of allegations alone – before and even in the absence of any investigative findings. It’s also OK to allow any investigation to be completely undermined by a preponderance of public opinion, and that the “rule of law” or “presumption of innocence” or even the protection of the rights of the accused really don’t matter when it comes to a quest for power.
DH,
You mentioned Title IX. For the record over 40 students filed Title IX against Kavanaugh in the last few days saying that his mere presence is sexually harassment. Hardvard subsequently released him as a professor.
Can we at least all agree that it is quite easy to make a generation into Nazis?
How can Democrat leaders be reasoned with?
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1047224930176122880
Most people are largely immune to logic.