Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Here are my exact words: “I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not…That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.” And the general statement “Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations”

You paraphrased that as…

You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander?

Either you’re trying to goad me into saying something I might regret, reading in your own assumptions, or intentionally twisting my words. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, Jor, but you are making it increasingly difficult for me to do so.

[RoadRunner79]

They have delayed, and have offered to hear out the accuser.  I don't think that it is a reasonable precedent to delay everything, because of a eleventh hour accusation.  I think that this could encourage unfalsifiable claims, for just that purpose.

I think that such things need no encouragement.  Even if they would, that is no reason to discourage them on its face.  As noted by multiple authors, there is plenty of time for a fuller investigation, the Republicans don't seem to want that solely because if the charges are substantiated, that will bork that or any nomination until after the election.  That is not a valid reason for not pursuing a fuller investigation.  The question is not simply whether such an investigation might delay a vote on his nomination, but whether that delay is justified or not.  I think it comical that we are 6 weeks away from the election, and Republicans are complaining that Feinstein brought the matter forward when she did rather than a mere seven days earlier.

They have delayed.   Without a time, place, other witnesses etc...   I'm unsure what further delay would accomplish.  They have offered to let here speak to the committee in public or private. If she wants to give here testimony, then sooner rather than later seems better.     It also doesn't stop an investigation.

[Silver]

Here are my exact words: “I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not…That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.”  And the general statement “Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations”

You paraphrased that as…

You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander?  

Either you’re trying to goad me into saying something I might regret, reading in your own assumptions, or intentionally twisting my words. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, Jor, but you are making it increasingly difficult for me to do so.

Don't forget this gem:

the attempt by Democrats to yet again besmirch the exceptional reputation of a clearly qualified man.

[downbeatplumb]

They have delayed.   Without a time, place, other witnesses etc...   I'm unsure what further delay would accomplish.  They have offered to let here speak to the committee in public or private. If she wants to give here testimony, then sooner rather than later seems better.     It also doesn't stop an investigation.

So let me get this straight, you want to rush a woman into doing something she isn't ready to do yet.

Much like the accused.

[Angrboda]

Here are my exact words: “I don't know if Anita Hill's story was true or not…That said, her testimony was exploited to slander Thomas.”  And the general statement “Democrats consistently try to use last minute unfounded slander to ruin reputations”

You paraphrased that as…

You consider Anita Hill's testimony unfounded slander?  

Either you’re trying to goad me into saying something I might regret, reading in your own assumptions, or intentionally twisting my words. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, Jor, but you are making it increasingly difficult for me to do so.

How is repeating the term "unfounded slander" back to you a paraphrase? In what way did I distort that, in the case of Kavanaugh, Hill, and Bork, you claimed that Democrats were using "unfounded slander" ?

You're just trying to deny what you said so that you can weasel out of it. If I'm distorting what you said, then rephrase it so it isn't distorted. And do so either without using the words "unfounded slander," "slander," or "exploitation," or, if you do, justifying their use.

(And I'll point out that you explicitly referred to the Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Bork nominations. That's a critical omission in your restatement above. If you weren't suggesting the charges in the Thomas and Kavanaugh case were unfounded slander, then what the fuck did you mean? You seem to want to paint me the bad guy for simply attributing the plain meaning to your words. Yet I've given you the opportunity to explain yourself or retract your earlier claim and you have done neither.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

If someone accused me of attempted rape, I would be delighted for the FBI to investigate it, because I know when they got to the bottom of it, there won't be anything there. And if I was a witness to the supposed attempted rape and knew that's not what happened at all, I would be happy to testify under oath to that effect.

Indeed. So would I. First, they would need details like the year it supposedly happened and where it might have occurred. As far as we know, neither has been provided. There's nothing to investigate. It would be like you applying for a job and I told your prospective employer that you embezzled money from some company, sometime, somewhere. The most you could say is that you don't know what I was talking about.

[John V]

On what do you rest that doubt?

Anyone named as involved by Ford says it never happened.

As previously noted, no other women have come forward with accusations.

[RoadRunner79]

They have delayed.   Without a time, place, other witnesses etc...   I'm unsure what further delay would accomplish.  They have offered to let here speak to the committee in public or private. If she wants to give here testimony, then sooner rather than later seems better.     It also doesn't stop an investigation.

So let me get this straight, you want to rush a woman into doing something she isn't ready to do yet.

Much like the accused.

She can do what she wants; nobody is forcing her to do anything.

[Angrboda]

On what do you rest that doubt?

Anyone named as involved by Ford says it never happened.

As previously noted, no other women have come forward with accusations.

And you find that to be improbable if the charges themselves are true? Saying that someone denies such a serious charge is hardly justification for "serious doubt." Only Kavanaugh has denied that the event happened and it seems reasonably plausible that, given the circumstances, he has considerable motive to lie about it. So in what sense is Kavanaugh's denial improbable if the allegation is true? It would appear that you have serious doubt about Blasey Ford's statement, but apparently little doubt about Kavanaugh's.

[John V]

Trump made a bad tweet about Ford this morning, pretty much lost my support.

---

And you find that to be improbable if the charges themselves are true?

I don't start by assuming that either side is true. Sure, if you assume guilty unless proven innocent, Kavanaugh looks bad, and there's no way he could prove his innocence at this point. But that's a pretty with-hunty assumption to make.

Saying that someone denies such a serious charge is hardly justification for "serious doubt."  Additionally, only Kavanaugh has denied that the event happened and it seems reasonably plausible that, given the circumstances, he has considerable motive to lie about it.  So, then the question becomes why do you have serious doubt about Blasey Ford's statement, but apparently little doubt about Kavanaugh's?

Ford said there were 4 other people there besides herself.

Kavanaugh denies it. Judge (who was named as involved) denies it. These of course have motivation to deny it.

Another person who was allegedly there, but did not witness the assault, appears to be Patrick J. Smyth. He also denies that the event occurred:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/...index.html

So out of 5 people, 1 says it happened, 3 says it didn't, and we haven't heard from the last.