Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Fartsniffage]

Brett Kavanaugh’s High School Friend Isn’t Helping the Nominee’s Case

Maybe the Supreme Court needs a black-out drunk.

But they've already got RBG.....

[Tahar Joblis]

An important thing to note here: human memory is fallible. Over time, especially if you remember it frequently, details drift away from reality until the original event is more or less completely lost. So we definitely should be highly skeptical; 36 years spells bad news for important things such as "accuracy" and "truth".

I don't think an assault is exactly something you can forget as easily as what happened in any other date. People, you know, tend to remember traumatic experiences.

You forget assaults.

For example, Herman and Schatzow (1987) reported "severe memory deficits" for abuse in 28% of their clinical sample of women in group therapy for incest survivors, although the majority of their clients (74%) were also able to obtain independent corroboration of the sexual assault experience. Briere and Conte (1993) found that 59% of 450 women and men in treatment for sexual abuse reported that at some point prior to age 18 they had forgotten the sexual abuse they suffered during childhood. Using a prospective design, Williams (1994) found that a large proportion of women (38%) with documented histories of sexual victimization in childhood who were followed up approximately 17 years later did not recall the abuse.

People forget traumatic experiences. The quote is about women, but it's not just true of women. If anything, men seem to forget victimization more - either repressing it more or successfully reframing it as something other than victimization - to the point where it plays merry havoc with lifetime vs 12 month rates in basically every single form of victimization you can try to measure with surveys. (This might not be obvious at first, but the male suicide rate, while high, isn't enough to explain that much of a drop.)

In general, if you rehearse a memory more, you recall it better (because you remember remembering it) but you also may modify it. So a memory of a non-consensual event might be reframed as consenting, or vice versa.

Since it's fashionable among some therapists to go hunting for repressed sexual trauma in the distant past in order to explain current psychological trouble, and those techniques match up to those used to construct false memories (and in some cases are demonstrably false based on the details of the memories), "long-repressed" memories are particularly unreliable bits of evidence. Because of the feminism tie-in, there's been a lot of contention over the issue of false memories.

It's very hard to know, in other words, if an accusation of this type is false or not, and entirely possible that both the accuser and accused believe themselves to be telling the truth regardless of which of those possibilities is true.

Since Senator Flake (R-AZ) looks like he wants to put the brakes on rather than rushing ahead with confirmation, it looks like we might even have time for evidence to come forward... and evidence that Kavanaugh partied hard in high school probably will not play well with the Republican base.

[Jerzyland]

...So now the White House is implying every man in America is a rapist?

Nope. The implication is that people are not honest 100% of the time.

Who knew?

[MERIZoC]

whoopsadasiliano my judicial nominee is a rapist oh well at least he won't be alone

[Hakons]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

[Proctopeo]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

I'm of the mind that we shouldn't remember people for the sins of their youth, and we should acknowledge that actions taken when young don't necessarily reflect the present self.
Especially if it was decades ago.

[Uiiop]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.

[Major-Tom]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.

And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.

I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."

Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.

[Proctopeo]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.

And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.

I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."

Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.

You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however

[Kash Island]

Last I checked: Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So they either buck up with the evidence or shut up.

[Hakons]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.

And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.

I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."

Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.

Kavanaugh has "categorically and unequivocally" denied these allegations, so the more proof that backs them up, the more a lier he is. I am not opposed to pulling his nomination. The annoying part would be left-wingers declaring "victory" in stopping the nomination, so a new nominee (Barrett ) should be quickly provided.

[Tarsonis]

I encourage all NSGers (Especially American ones) to listen o Judge Kavenaugh's confirmation hearing.

It is being broadcast live here https://www.cnn.com/specials/live-video-1?adkey=bn

They are scheduled to go into the evening.

My opinion thus far it looks like he will be confirmed as he has handled himself well. It will also go tomorrow.

He'll be confirmed because there's a Republican majority in the Senate. Donald Trump could shoot someone in Times Square and Kavanaugh would still be confirmed.

Depends who he shoots.

[Galloism]

The accusation seems credible. It's not just a random accusation, but an identified accuser who has a therapist as a witness with records from 2012. It seems likely Kavanaugh harassed a girl at a High School party.

This raises the question, is there room for forgiving terrible actions after a long period of time? This was in the 80s, and Kavanaugh was a teenager, but it was still a nasty thing. Do we expect senior public officials to have spotless records? Is there a moral statute of limitations?

Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.

Honestly, the denial could be just as legit as the original accusation.

Our memory really does stink. We invent details and such, and the more you recall a memory, the further it drifts from the original. Every time we recall it, we change it.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Kavanaugh and his idiots friends legit shoved a teenage girl and locked her in a bedroom.

Over time, Kavanaugh has forgotten this part, only remembering the party itself. So he denies, and pass a lie detector because he truly believes it. As his sense of self does not include locking up innocent people, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.

Meanwhile, his accuser has remembered additional details that didn’t happen - namely the forcing down, etc. She can pass a lie detector because she truly believes this happened. Her sense of self (again, hypothetically) includes the eternal victimhood that society constantly tells her. Since her sense of self is one of victimhood, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.

The interesting part of this is they’re both telling the truth from their perspective, while neither one is telling in the truth in reality (in the cosmic truth sense).

And here’s the funny part: none of this is purposeful or deliberate. We can’t not edit our memories when we access them.

This is a hypothetical, not a statement of fact. But it’s supremely plausible.


And, perhaps more importantly, how does a memory from over 30 years ago stop the presses while the fact Kavanaugh believes in nearly unchecked executive power doesn’t even slow them down?

[Major-Tom]

The story isn't regarding sexual harassment, it's regarding sexual assault.

And, yes, I expect my senior public officials to have not assaulted a girl at a party, no matter how long ago it was. If it's true, which I believe it is, it shows that he has a bad character. He never owned up to it, apologized for it, nothing. He just pretended it never happened and is now trying to be on the fucking Supreme Court.

I believe the accuser. I also have a strong feeling Kavanaugh is human excrement. I'm pessimistic about the confirmation hearing coming. Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski may posture themselves as "good 'ol "nice, moral Republicans" but their actions since 2016 have spoken louder than their posturing. I expect maybe one Republican to vote against the nomination, maybe two, and maybe even a Democrat such as Manchin or Heitkamp to vote in favor because "muh retain my seat."

Edit: It should be worth noting that the accuser's allegations are far more credible than Kavanaugh's denial, given the history of her case, her therapist, a polygraph, and what she would have to lose coming out.

You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however

I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain. I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain. The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.

And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.

But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.

Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.

[Uiiop]

Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.

Honestly, the denial could be just as legit as the original accusation.

Our memory really does stink. We invent details and such, and the more you recall a memory, the further it drifts from the original. Every time we recall it, we change it.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Kavanaugh and his idiots friends legit shoved a teenage girl and locked her in a bedroom.

Over time, Kavanaugh has forgotten this part, only remembering the party itself. So he denies, and pass a lie detector because he truly believes it. As his sense of self does not include locking up innocent people, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.

Meanwhile, his accuser has remembered additional details that didn’t happen - namely the forcing down, etc. She can pass a lie detector because she truly believes this happened. Her sense of self (again, hypothetically) includes the eternal victimhood that society constantly tells her. Since her sense of self is one of victimhood, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.

The interesting part of this is they’re both telling the truth from their perspective, while neither one is telling in the truth in reality (in the cosmic truth sense).

And here’s the funny part: none of this is purposeful or deliberate. We can’t not edit our memories when we access them.

This is a hypothetical, not a statement of fact. But it’s supremely plausible.


And, perhaps more importantly, how does a memory from over 30 years ago stop the presses while the fact Kavanaugh believes in nearly unchecked executive power doesn’t even slow them down?

I was arguing under the assumption that her account was 100% accurate to argue a hypothetical about a different subject.

Still fair point.

[Kash Island]

You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however

I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain. I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain. The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.

And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.

But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.

Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.

at the bolded

look at the confirmation hearing and everything that has been happening, multiple arrested/taken out for disturbance and the Democrats constantly hammering him with very leading questions.

then ALL OF A SUDDEN(even though apparently they have had this information for what? 3 MONTHS?!) NOW....NOW is the time to bring it up...right before he becomes judge.....how...convinient...

[Telconi]

Depends on the crime and the response tbh.
If it wasn't that big and/or if he copped to and apologized then I may not like him for it but i would accept what he said.
The Denial at least would count as a black mark in the my book.
Assuming this is what happened of course.

Honestly, the denial could be just as legit as the original accusation.

Our memory really does stink. We invent details and such, and the more you recall a memory, the further it drifts from the original. Every time we recall it, we change it.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario:

Kavanaugh and his idiots friends legit shoved a teenage girl and locked her in a bedroom.

Over time, Kavanaugh has forgotten this part, only remembering the party itself. So he denies, and pass a lie detector because he truly believes it. As his sense of self does not include locking up innocent people, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.

Meanwhile, his accuser has remembered additional details that didn’t happen - namely the forcing down, etc. She can pass a lie detector because she truly believes this happened. Her sense of self (again, hypothetically) includes the eternal victimhood that society constantly tells her. Since her sense of self is one of victimhood, the memory is edited to fit the sense of self.

The interesting part of this is they’re both telling the truth from their perspective, while neither one is telling in the truth in reality (in the cosmic truth sense).

And here’s the funny part: none of this is purposeful or deliberate. We can’t not edit our memories when we access them.

This is a hypothetical, not a statement of fact. But it’s supremely plausible.


And, perhaps more importantly, how does a memory from over 30 years ago stop the presses while the fact Kavanaugh believes in nearly unchecked executive power doesn’t even slow them down?

Because people get hard-ons for executive power when their boy is in the hot seat. However, sexual assault is a much more uniform wrong.

[Uiiop]

I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain. I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain. The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.

And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.

But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.

Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.

at the bolded

look at the confirmation hearing and everything that has been happening, multiple arrested/taken out for disturbance and the Democrats constantly hammering him with very leading questions.

then ALL OF A SUDDEN(even though apparently they have had this information for what? 3 MONTHS?!) NOW....NOW is the time to bring it up...right before he becomes judge.....how...convinient...

Opportunistic timing on others and the accuser being sincere aren't mutually exclusive.

[Galloism]

Because people get hard-ons for executive power when their boy is in the hot seat. However, sexual assault is a much more uniform wrong.

*grumbles a lot*

The president is supposed to be chief administrator. He should be about as interesting as a factory foreman or office manager.

[Kash Island]

at the bolded

look at the confirmation hearing and everything that has been happening, multiple arrested/taken out for disturbance and the Democrats constantly hammering him with very leading questions.

then ALL OF A SUDDEN(even though apparently they have had this information for what? 3 MONTHS?!) NOW....NOW is the time to bring it up...right before he becomes judge.....how...convinient...

Opportunistic timing on others and the accuser being sincere aren't mutually exclusive.

Dosn't matter, Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

that used to mean something in a free country.

[Telconi]

Because people get hard-ons for executive power when their boy is in the hot seat. However, sexual assault is a much more uniform wrong.

*grumbles a lot*

The president is supposed to be chief administrator. He should be about as interesting as a factory foreman or office manager.

"Should" is my least favorite word.

[Uiiop]

Opportunistic timing on others and the accuser being sincere aren't mutually exclusive.

Dosn't matter, Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

that used to mean something in a free country.

That's also the reason we shouldn't just dismiss this.
Just because someone brought up a possible crime to damage someone's chances doesn't mean they're guilty of lying about it.

[Proctopeo]

You can pretty much discount the polygraph, since it's sufficiently unreliable, rather easy to game if you understand how, and subject to human error and interpretation.
Your last point also falls apart; given the incredible power of mere accusations to destroy careers (as demonstrated by much of #MeToo), there's not much to lose, except for maybe credibility.
Not sure what "history of her case" means however

I completely disagree with your point about accusers. While innocent until proven guilty is certainly something to uphold, accusing a powerful individual of a heinous thing is rarely for personal gain.

Depends on what you consider "personal gain". Knocking someone down a peg or two counts as a personal gain, if you benefit from the ego boost and the schadenfreude.

I can't count how many men (and women) have been accused of egregious misconduct and then either admitted to it, or simply gave a wishy-washy answer that was essentially an admission. It's because, quite often, the accuser has more to lose than to gain.

The accused has much more to lose than the accuser does, however. This is good, if the claim is valid, but bad if it's not.

The accuser has brought forward therapist notes (as has her husband and lawyer) dating back to 2012, where she describes the event with Kavanaugh.

Which is more reliable, depending on the contents of said notes. Of course, Gallo's point (ie, that memories are faulty) applies here.

And, while polygraphs are shaky science, it is generally fairly accurate, just not foolproof. That's why I wouldn't say, concretely, that Kavanaugh is an assaulter.

I still err on the side of caution here; polygraphs are sufficiently unreliable for me to not trust their results.

But I remember attending an All Boys Prep School. The culture there is disgusting. The schools try to groom students for "higher society" and try to portray the students as hardworking, upstanding gentlemen. But I remember the culture against women in my old school that is remarkably similar to Kavanaugh's old school. Hell, the valedictorian at my old HS was high fived for fucking an unconcious girl.

Wouldn't be surprised if Kavanaugh saw similar things, but took part in these heinous things, as opposed to being fucking horrified.

While a nice anecdote, it doesn't really say much tbh

[Kash Island]

Dosn't matter, Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

that used to mean something in a free country.

That's also the reason we shouldn't just dismiss this.
Just because someone brought up a possible crime to damage someone's chances doesn't mean they're guilty of lying about it.

Well they need to bring the evidence and go to court and have a trial cause this is bullshit until proven otherwise.

[Galloism]

Dosn't matter, Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

that used to mean something in a free country.

That's also the reason we shouldn't just dismiss this.
Just because someone brought up a possible crime to damage someone's chances doesn't mean they're guilty of lying about it.

I mean, they don’t have to be lying for it to be untrue, though.

Lying implies malevolence. None is required.