« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Kavanaugh defence already caught in a possible lie over Ford

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 21 Sep 18 6:22 PM | 49 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 26892 of 52887
(This msg. is a reply to 26890 by clo)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The senators know very well that memories have different levels of precision depending upon the intensity of the incident. Which senator can tell you what they ate for lunch last week? And yet I am sure they recall the day they first won election to the senate.

The fact that people don't remember one thing doesn't mean they don't remember another.

Sounds like her memory fits well with the culture of that school, according to other attendees.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Kavanaugh defence already caught in a possible lie over Ford
By: clo
in ALEA
Fri, 21 Sep 18 5:51 PM
Msg. 26890 of 52887

in part:
At present, there are reasons to doubt his credibility on this particular matter. Among them, somewhat ironically, is the improbable extensiveness of his denial, at least as relayed by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah).

Kavanaugh’s public statement thus far has been brief: “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” But Hatch has added another layer of comprehensiveness to Kavanaugh’s denial, saying through a spokesman that Kavanaugh personally told the senator he was “not at a party like the one [accuser Christine Blasey Ford] describes.”

Assuming Hatch is faithfully repeating this conversation, the assertion that Kavanaugh wasn’t at a party like the one described is at best fishy. After all, Ford’s own recollection of the alleged incident is hazy and offers few details — including where the party was — beyond the fact that it was a house with no parents present, where just a few teens were drinking and Kavanaugh’s close friend was present, probably in 1982. Sometimes Kavanaugh’s defenders cite this lack of detail to cast doubt on her credibility, but his denial, given the lack of detail, would seem at least somewhat discrediting of him.

More significantly, his evasiveness in other exchanges with senators — about, for example, receiving stolen information while working in the George W. Bush White House, or getting sexually explicit mass emails from a circuit judge who abruptly retired following sexual harassment accusations — have likewise called his candor into question. Perhaps the explanation is a willful blindness and not any duplicity. But that’s hardly a better quality to seek out in a Supreme Court justice.

The big possible lie we should worry about, in any case — and the one that seems more plausible in light of these other statements — would be his promise to be “a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy,” who follows the Constitution faithfully and respects precedent.

more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-should-we-believe-kavanaugh/2018/09/20/5aa24980-bd05-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html?utm_term=.fe6ea80f5d48


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next