NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted September 27, 2018 Author Share Posted September 27, 2018 Wow. Kavanaugh coming in hard! Clarence Thomas-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 He's coming off angry. While understandable if he's innocent, it's still a look that has to be carefully calibrated. It can be taken wrong by some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kd4au 1,145 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 1 minute ago, TitanTiger said: Yes, because her understanding is that having them come to her wasn't going to be possible, or at least that they wouldn't be able to do it to the same extent, so she decided to come to them. You're making a mountain of a molehill. No it is dem playbook, all they really want is to delay the BK confirmation until after the nov. election in hopes that they will win. E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Just now, kd4au said: No it is dem playbook, all they really want is to delay the BK confirmation until after the nov. election in hopes that they will win. E That won't happen and they know it won't happen, unless Trump is an abject moron. If he thinks for a second it will go beyond that, he'll yank BK's name and put in a new one post haste and McConnell will fast track the confirmation vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 1 minute ago, TitanTiger said: He's coming off angry. While understandable if he's innocent, it's still a look that has to be carefully calibrated. It can be taken wrong by some people. The Fox interview was... inadvisable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Fox News' Chris Wallace on Ford's testimony: "This was extremely emotional, extremely raw, and extremely credible. Nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault and impact it had on her life and not have your heart go out to her. She obviously was traumatized by the event. This is a disaster for the Republicans." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 I don't think that the argument that Mrs. Ford was possibly sexually assaulted by someone but it wasn't him is a bad argument. You stick with the idea that she's lying for personal reasons or lying for political reasons and being paid off. But to say she's just confused as to who tried to rape her is stupid. No one believes that a person subjected to something like this, in a situation where it wasn't a stranger that ambushed her in the park while jogging or something, wouldn't know who did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 The show of emotion there was a better tone, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted September 27, 2018 Author Share Posted September 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: He's coming off angry. While understandable if he's innocent, it's still a look that has to be carefully calibrated. It can be taken wrong by some people. Do you think he is lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Do you think he is lying? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle 9,064 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Both appear credible to me. I'm not able to infer anything from either person's statements. What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 His contention that her story has been refuted isn't accurate. That's an overstatement of what has been said by potential witnesses. At best it could be said that they could not recall certain aspects or that they didn't see certain aspects of her story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubearcat 2,137 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 I think at worst right now it’s a stalemate. He’s made some good factual type statements and Ford made some impressionable statements as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted September 27, 2018 Author Share Posted September 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: His contention that her story has been refuted isn't accurate. That's an overstatement of what has been said by potential witnesses. At best it could be said that they could not recall certain aspects or that they didn't see certain aspects of her story. They denied any recollection of attending such a party where BK was with Ford, under the allegations asserted. Ford said they were there. If that does not conclusively qualify as a refutation, then I would presume you don't think it possible for them to be able to refute Ford's claims, given they literally have no recollection that the party even took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: They denied any recollection of attending such a party where BK was with Ford, under the allegations asserted. As I said, they could not recall. That is not a refutation. 3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Ford said they were there. If that does not conclusively qualify as a refutation, then I would presume you don't think it possible for them to be able to refute Ford's claims, given they literally have no recollection that the party even took place. No, I'm just pointing out the difference in the two terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Aside from his initial angry tone and the overstatement of what a refutation is, he's acquitting himself well so far overall. It's patently absurd that the GOP is trying to make this one day hearing the end of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted September 27, 2018 Author Share Posted September 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: As I said, they could not recall. That is not a refutation. No, I'm just pointing out the difference in the two terms. Depending on how strictly you define the term - proving something is wrong vs discrediting a theory. In essence, the strict view literally would mean it is impossible for the witnesses to refute the claim that they were present when these acts allegedly took place because they don't remember any of this ever happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Just now, NolaAuTiger said: Depending on how strictly you define the term - proving something is wrong vs discrediting a theory. In essence, the strict view literally would mean it is impossible for the witnesses to refute the claim that they were present when these acts allegedly took place because they don't remember any of this ever happening. To me, and I think to most people, a refuting of something is more definitive. It's a positive assertion rather than a passive one. It doesn't require objective proof to be a refutation. But it does have to be stronger than simply being unable to remember. In this context, a refutation would be "I am certain that I never attended a party like this or even a party where Mrs. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh were both present." "I do not recall" or "have no recollection" that such a party occurred or that those people were present leaves the possibility open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 35 minutes ago, aubearcat said: I think at worst right now it’s a stalemate. He’s made some good factual type statements and Ford made some impressionable statements as well. Think the year book stuff was an obvious lie. Other than that, think he handled it about as well as he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle 9,064 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: To me, and I think to most people, a refuting of something is more definitive. It's a positive assertion rather than a passive one. It doesn't require objective proof to be a refutation. But it does have to be stronger than simply being unable to remember. In this context, a refutation would be "I am certain that I never attended a party like this or even a party where Mrs. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh were both present." "I do not recall" or "have no recollection" that such a party occurred or that those people were present leaves the possibility open. I'm not sure most people would be able to refute such a claim, about events 36 years ago with certainty. I definitely understand the distinction you are making, but considering what they are asking them to recall, it's no surprise to me that they won't say definitively, "this never happened." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubearcat 2,137 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Just now, AUDub said: Think the year book stuff was an obvious lie. Other than that, think he handled it about as well as he could. I know the tone he initially started off with may have seemed harsh but I would like to think that if I (or anyone)were unjustly accused of a crime, I’d aggressively defend myself. It’s going to be awfully difficult to get a definitive inclination one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Just now, Barnacle said: I'm not sure most people would be able to refute such a claim, about events 36 years ago with certainty. I definitely understand the distinction you are making, but considering what they are asking them to recall, it's no surprise to me that they won't say definitively, "this never happened." That's why I didn't say he was putting complete bull**** out there. I just think he overstated how definitive what they said was. They didn't refute her. They just couldn't recall or corroborate her story. That's a meaningful distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted September 27, 2018 Author Share Posted September 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: To me, and I think to most people, a refuting of something is more definitive. It's a positive assertion rather than a passive one. It doesn't require objective proof to be a refutation. But it does have to be stronger than simply being unable to remember. In this context, a refutation would be "I am certain that I never attended a party like this or even a party where Mrs. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh were both present." "I do not recall" or "have no recollection" that such a party occurred or that those people were present leaves the possibility open. I guess the thing is, in this context, depending on how one defines refutation, it could literally be impossible. Even if you'd require "certainty," the next question would require proof of that certainty wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle 9,064 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 Just now, TitanTiger said: That's why I didn't say he was putting complete bull**** out there. I just think he overstated how definitive what they said was. They didn't refute her. They just couldn't recall or corroborate her story. That's a meaningful distinction. Yeah that's fair. I'm just pointing out that the distinction diminishes over time to a point where there is little to no distinction to be made at all. It's a much more meaningful distinction if the alleged events occurred 5 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnacle 9,064 Posted September 27, 2018 Share Posted September 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: I guess the thing is, in this context, depending on how one defines refutation, it could literally be impossible. Even if you'd require "certainty," the next question would require proof of that certainty wouldn't it? If they were being cross examined, it would most likely be: Q: "Is it your testimony today that you are absolutely certain that these events never occurred?" A: "I guess I can't be 100% certain, but to the best of my recollection, this never happened." Q: "Just so we're clear, you can't say with 100% certainty, that this event never occurred." A: "Correct." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.