It's obvious what the Republican strategy is here. Grassley and Republicans want to limit testimony to Kavanaugh and his accuser so that after having orchestrated a situation in which he-said she-said is the only possible result, they can use that as justification for dismissing the allegations and voting for Kavanaugh. It's as transparent as it is despiccable. It's just another way of pre-judging Christine Blasey Ford's allegations and coming to the conclusion you'd already arrived at independent of the facts.

Why isn't Judge willing to testify? If I were Kavanaugh's friend, and I had exculpatory testimony to offer, I would. Some friend.

Smyth's reluctance to testify is somewhat more understandable. But the committee should subpoena both of them. That the committee is not only not pursuing additional witnesses, but is explicitly excluding them, is a disgrace.

---

Quote:-- Another important perspective: “Black children are 18 more times likely to be tried as adults than are white children,” Vanessa Williams reports. “It is a statistic that Phillip Atiba Goff, a social psychologist who studies racial disparities in the criminal justice system, would like to be included in the [Kavanaugh] debate … Some … have asked if it’s fair to judge him as an adult for something that he is accused of having done when he would have been 17 years old. This kind of consideration is rarely extended to black boys, said Goff. He authored a 2014 study that found that black boys ‘are seen as more culpable for their actions (i.e. less innocent) within a criminal justice context’ than white boys, and ‘are actually misperceived as older relative to peers of other races.’”

(Washington Post)

Quote:The senior aide also noted that this was particularly important to pursue given that a particular person was named, and because it constituted an open acknowledgment by a top Kavanaugh ally that “the party in question” — where the alleged attack took place — “actually happened.”

...On Thursday, a top aide to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican who sits on the Judiciary Committee, mysteriously told everyone to keep an eye on Whelan’s Twitter feed. Though he has since claimed no knowledge of Whelan’s plan, this at least raises questions as to whether it had come up in internal discussions with the very Republicans who will vote to move Kavanaugh’s nomination forward.

(Washington Post on the Whelan theory)

Kavanaugh does not have a soul; however, maybe, he has a conscience, and this experience of his ("conscious perjury") will make him into a compassionate, perhaps, left-wing SCOTUS justice!  How ironic?!

Odd that your conscience is OK with the whole guilty until proven innocent thing.

This is NOT a criminal court of law; there are different standards of evidence for different courts in the United States and elsewhere throughout the (free) World.

(September 22, 2018 at 3:27 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This is NOT a criminal court of law; there are different standards of evidence for different courts in the United States and elsewhere throughout the (free) World.

Yep, it's a Senate thing only. Yet, you guys are acting as if the Senate should do whatever you say.

(September 22, 2018 at 7:29 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 21, 2018 at 10:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Smyth's statement that he has no knowledge of the party is not saying that the party didn't occur.  That doesn't follow.

Yes, it follows 100%. You can choose not to believe him if you want, but his statement directly contradicts Ford's claim.

That's ridiculous. I have no knowledge of a party on my eighteenth birthday. That doesn't mean I didn't have a party on my eighteenth birthday. At the very least it doesn't follow 100%. You don't believe Ms. Blasey Ford has correctly identified her assailant, because memory is unreliable and shit, yet you apparently believe that Smyth would necessarily have remembered a party which happened 36 years ago... because memory is unreliable and shit? Well at least you're consistent. And you still haven't brought us these additional witnesses beyond Smyth. So we have Smyth, who doesn't remember. Judge, a frequent drinker and friend of Kavanaugh, who doesn't remember. And unnamed persons, who may or may not remember something relevant. It's well known that inability to remember something is far more common than misremembering something. And that the events wouldn't stick out in Judge's mind given his attitude towards women is hardly remarkable.

What exactly are you saying I don't believe him regarding when you suggest that I can choose not to believe him? I fully believe he may not have any knowledge of the party. What exactly is it that you think I am choosing not to believe?

(In order for a statement to directly contradict another statement, the two statements would have to be necessarily inconsistent. Since not remembering a party is not necessarily inconsistent with a party actually having happened, you are simply wrong on this. You're effectively saying that it's impossible for Smyth to have forgotten a party 36 years ago, which is absurd on the face of it.)

I've gotta say... if he was as innocent as he is trying to make himself out to be - Mrs. Ford should not be receiving death threats and she shouldn't have had to move her family elsewhere for safety.

(September 22, 2018 at 6:11 pm)Joods Wrote: I've gotta say... if he was as innocent as he is trying to make himself out to be - Mrs. Ford should not be receiving death threats and she shouldn't have had to move her family elsewhere for safety.

That's an incredibly stupid comment.

---

Not only is it a complete non sequitur, it also ignores the fact that Kavanaugh has been receiving death threats too.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/...index.html

And emails to his wife, like:

Quote:"My condolences to you for being married to a rapist. Although you probably deserve it," the person wrote in an email obtained by CNN.

Another message sent Wednesday had the subject line, "F*** YOU AND YOUR RAPIST HUSBAND."