Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Trausti]

Don't forget the boat incident, the one about him abusing his girlfriend in the 90's, and the rape in the backseat of the car. All we need are accusations, right? Burn the witch.

Republican operatives don't count.

But we gotta believe the woman. #metoo

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don't forget the boat incident, the one about him abusing his girlfriend in the 90's, and the rape in the backseat of the car. All we need are accusations, right? Burn the witch.

Republican operatives don't count.

But we gotta believe the woman. #metoo

Riiiight because men didn't also call him liar.

#redredwhine

 

[Trausti]

But we gotta believe the woman. #metoo

Riiiight because men didn't also call him liar.

#redredwhine

And women don't call her a liar, either.

 

[Patooka]

But we gotta believe the woman. #metoo

Riiiight because men didn't also call him liar.

#redredwhine

And women don't call her a liar, either.

Like this woman for Kavanaugh? Or are you referring to women like Renate Dolphin who offered support for Kavanaugh and totally don't regret doing that?

 

[Trausti]

And women don't call her a liar, either.

Like this woman for Kavanaugh? Or are you referring to women like Renate Dolphin who offered support for Kavanaugh and totally don't regret doing that?

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Renate Alumnus?

Oh yeah, uh, that means we, uh, used to do our homework with her. Yeah, that's the ticket!

#redredwhine

 

[Jarhyn]

Eh, the whip the dick allegation was the contrivance of Ramierz, not Ford. Due try to keep up with all uncorroborated slander.

You keep forgetting that whole "bald faced liars lose the benefit of the doubt" part that most reasonable people operate under. He cried "truth" too many times about boofing, etc., it's no wonder people don't believe his cries of "truth" with respect to rape.

And since we aren't a jail sentence, and because he isn't facing a criminal court or a real FBI investigation, we can ethically believe these charges until such a thing happens to conclude our belief in one way or the other. Of course, we could have seen the FBI confirm or invalidate the position that Tobin's house matches Ford's testimony, but you don't seem to want that to happen. So yeah, Gangbang Bart and the Boofers can go play that tune down on rapist lane for all I care.

Don't forget the boat incident, the one about him abusing his girlfriend in the 90's, and the rape in the backseat of the car. All we need are accusations, right? Burn the witch.

How about "don't trust the lying liar".

- - - Updated - - -

And women don't call her a liar, either.

Like this woman for Kavanaugh? Or are you referring to women like Renate Dolphin who offered support for Kavanaugh and totally don't regret doing that?

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

One of what kind of people? Oh yeah, the kind that lies like Trump.

 

[Copernicus]

And women don't call her a liar, either.

Like this woman for Kavanaugh? Or are you referring to women like Renate Dolphin who offered support for Kavanaugh and totally don't regret doing that?

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

It turns out that Keyser did not directly make any such claims. Her lawyer "took care of" the problem for her by crafting the letter to the Committee. She herself was only named by Ford as someone who was at the party, not a witness to the attempted rape. Keyser has also said that she believes Ford, not Kavanaugh. You are completely distorting the facts, which came out during Ford's testimony. You seem to be parroting the Republican line on Leland without actually having seen her testimony. Or perhaps you just weren't paying attention to what you didn't want to hear.

 

[Trausti]

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

It turns out that Keyser did not directly make any such claims. Her lawyer "took care of" the problem for her by crafting the letter to the Committee. She herself was only named by Ford as someone who was at the party, not a witness to the attempted rape. Keyser has also said that she believes Ford, not Kavanaugh. You are completely distorting the facts, which came out during Ford's testimony. You seem to be parroting the Republican line on Leland without actually having seen her testimony. Or perhaps you just weren't paying attention to what you didn't want to hear.

It's already been posted in this thread that the "I believe her" from Keyser came after her initial statement and pressure from associates of Ford. Ford still threw her under the bus.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure, and that is a job interview.

No, because there is an obvious political dimension which you are eliding that is certainly not present in your standard-issue job interview.

I don't think you're getting my view. But what answer of his are you questioning, in particular?

In particular his answer about whether he'd ever drank to a black-out state, and he demanded the Senator conducting the questioning whether she had done so as well. Hope that helps. But in general, his combativeness, conspiracy-theorizing, and exalting trifles while minimizing key issues call into question his ability to maintain objectivity in hearings and decisions, to my mind.

Impeachment is not a criminal process, but it is a punitive process nonetheless. And as long as the person is being convicted and punished for an alleged wrongdoing, it is not acceptable to convict without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's your own opinion; fair enough. That is not the nature of the impeachment process, though.

As for why I think you would support impeachment on insufficient evidence, it's based on your statement:

If evidence surfaces of Kavanaugh lying under oath, even if not sufficient for criminal conviction, it should give pause to those who closed their eyes and voted party-line on the matter. That too is impeachable, and almost certainly the more probable of the two charges.

The evidence that is not sufficient for criminal conviction is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and without that, I don't think it's right to punish (in the moral sense; i.e., intending to inflict punishment for a wrongdoing, which is clearly what the people calling for an impeachment are asking for, at least in all cases I've seen).
In short, I disagree on what amount of evidence is sufficient.

And again, that's an opinion you hold. That's fine; we disagree.

By the way, that would not shield anyone from criticism. It's just that I don't think Senators should tell any official (implicitly or explicitly) that they're removed for wrongful behavior without conclusive evidence of wrongful behavior.

See above.

Maybe there is conclusive evidence in the case of Kavanaugh, though. I haven't looked at the matter in sufficient detail to be sure.

It certainly appears to be the case regarding his descriptions. Of course, such an abbreviated follow-up investigation which didn't interview many of his cohorts would likely not produce evidence sufficient to convince you.

As for whether committing the crime of lying under oath is disqualifying, we need to be more precise about what one means by "disqualifying". If the question is whether we should significantly lower our credence that he will do a good job, then the answer is "no", given that his track record as a judge - for good or ill - is far weightier than any such evidence, so it pretty much swamps everything.
On the other hand, if he did lie under oath and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that, then arguably he does not deserve to be in the Supreme Court, so it's disqualifying in that sense.

I really don't care what he lied about. If Kavanaugh lied under oath, he committed a felony and is unfit to sit on the bench. This is not a matter of assigning value to the merits of the lie. This is a matter of principle as well as law.

That answer does not seem to address the points I make in the part of my post you quote. I never tried to assign value to the merits of the lie.

I disagree. When you ask whether or not the lie he may have told would lower our faith in his good work or not, that is indeed a reference to the nature of the lie. It doesn't matter whether the lie would affect our perception of his judicial qualities. The fact that he lied under oath, if shown to be true, is regnant.

I'm a pretty simple guy. If you commit a felony in the process of seeking a judgeship on the highest court in the land, you're prima facie demonstrating unfitness.

No, it was not pertinent. You were objecting to my points in reply to Don in a non-pertinent manner. It is pertinent to the whole discussion in the thread, though, but you were not just making a point in the thread, in a separate post, but bringing up the matter in a specific context. I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter (or a Ford supporter, or anyone's supporter here), and I don't want to avoid the point other than my not wanting to debate matters with people committed to their ideology, since it's tiring and they persist, but since I'm already debating Don, by all means make your case against Kavanaugh if you like. I actually do not know beforehand whether I will agree, as I haven't taken a look at all of the details of the accusations of perjury yet.

His fitness for the bench is certainly pertinent to your discussion.

 

[Arctish]

And women don't call her a liar, either.

Like this woman for Kavanaugh? Or are you referring to women like Renate Dolphin who offered support for Kavanaugh and totally don't regret doing that?

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

"Threw her under the bus" how, exactly?

Ford said Keyser was there. Keyser said she didn't remember being there. Was there something else?

 

[repoman]

Should have led with what about close to proven - the job related crappiness and possible illegalities by Kav. Actually the woman senator that Kavanaugh was rude to Klobuchar, she actually also mentioned these job related actions. She was probably the senator with the best questions/speech by a good margin.

If more of the senators and the media kept the heat on job stuff he may have lost the vote.

Well next time there is a nominee with a clean personal life, but severe job related power abuses (like some say of Kav) how will that work out?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

"Threw her under the bus" how, exactly?

Ford said Keyser was there. Keyser said she didn't remember being there. Was there something else?

It was actually quite unbelievable. I'm surprised you don't remember. Dr. Ford had brought a bus into the building and then threw Keyser under it. It wasn't a metaphor... literally threw her under the bus. It was gripping!

 

[Trausti]

Or Leland Keyser who doesn't know what Ford was talking about and doesn't know why she was named as a witness? And then Ford threw her under the bus when questioned at the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing? But Kavanaugh is one of those people, so it's okay to run him threw the mud.

"Threw her under the bus" how, exactly?

Ford said Keyser was there. Keyser said she didn't remember being there. Was there something else?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1045380447293902849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1045380447293902849&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2018%2F09%2F27%2Fthat-was-insane-christine-blasey-ford-just-threw-friend-leland-keyser-under-the-bus-and-called-her-a-liar%2F

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Don,

I've been doing more research with respect to your HIPAA objection. It turns out that Ford is a research psychologist, not a clinical psychologist. She does not have patients, and no advice she gives fall under doctor-patient confidentiality. By the way, if Merrick is not lying, he was present when Ford was giving polygraph advice to McLean, so even if she had been a clinical psychologist, I don't think this could have been considered confidential. But it's a moot point, anyway, for the aforementioned reasons.

And yes, of course, maybe Merrick was lying. But maybe he was not. We don't know.

Renate Alumnus?

Oh yeah, uh, that means we, uh, used to do our homework with her. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Yeah, he very probably lied about what that meant - and maybe also by claiming to have had sex with her (in the yearbook), though that one wasn't under oath.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don,

I've been doing more research with respect to your HIPAA objection. It turns out that Ford is a research psychologist, not a clinical psychologist. She does not have patients, and no advice she gives fall under doctor-patient confidentiality. By the way, if Merrick is not lying, he was present when Ford was giving polygraph advice to McLean, so even if she had been a clinical psychologist, I don't think this could have been considered confidential. But it's a moot point, anyway, for the aforementioned reasons.

She may still have had an ethical obligation under ethics guidelines for psychologists, been simply mistaken, or understood the question as coaching which she was probably not doing. Merely telling someone they need to be calm during polygraphs is quite normal and actually what the polygrapher ought to also try to do to get the person to be at a baseline. It's the difficult questions about lying that will stress someone out...but yeah, polygraphs aren't that reliable anyway. Maybe Merrick was telling the truth, too, without it meaning coaching. In any case, I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything strongly against her testimony unless you want to say she deliberately is making something up and fooled the polygraph as part of a conspiracy [by George Soros] which I don't believe because it's silly. That she is not a clinical psychologist ought to also make her even more remote from polygraphs, their testing methodologies, and give her less experience in dealing with them...which it would seem makes it less likely she could beat it...unless her research is all around polygraphs. I also find that hard to believe because if that were true, a Republican politician would certainly have brought it up.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, because there is an obvious political dimension which you are eliding that is certainly not present in your standard-issue job interview.

I'm not eliding anything. It was not a trial, but a job interview. Of course, it has unusual characteristics. For example, a person may be the enemy of some of the people deciding whether to hire him (as it was clearly the case here), and get the job because his enemies are outnumbered by his allies, who happen to be the enemies of the other people whether to hire him. Weird, right?
But at the end of the day, there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, or even a "preponderance of evidence" standard, and the people making the choice have a big leeway in how they make their choice.

For example, you said:

Was it a job interview? No. It was a chance to examine the man. I myself think he falls short of SCOTUS-quality judgeship: overly emotional, dissimulative, would rather attack than listen or answer ... nah

But that is a job interview. They examine him, and they make their choice, with a lot of leeway.

In particular his answer about whether he'd ever drank to a black-out state, and he demanded the Senator conducting the questioning whether she had done so as well. Hope that helps. But in general, his combativeness, conspiracy-theorizing, and exalting trifles while minimizing key issues call into question his ability to maintain objectivity in hearings and decisions, to my mind.

He was combative against those who had already decided to vote against him - and some of whom were accusing him.
Now, if that hearing had been the only thing we know of him, sure, that would call into question what his ability. But his track record swamps that evidence with a lot more evidence (indeed, I'm not even sure he was being emotional or delivering an Oscar-winning performance to get the political effect he intended). I think there are good reasons to vote against him (especially if Roe v. Wade and other cases were correctly decided). But I don't think evidence agains his ability coming from this hearing is one of them.

On the other hand, his reputation was seriously tainted among legal scholars because of that hearing. That gives a reason to vote against: to protect the reputation of the SCOTUS. Of course, if he had behaved in a calm manner, plenty of people would accuse him of being cold, etc., and would still hate him. In short, the reputation of the Court was going to be damaged regardless.

That's your own opinion; fair enough. That is not the nature of the impeachment process, though.

It is the nature of the the process that begins by impeachment and continues with a trial by the Senate. The person is found guilty if the accusation succeeds. I'm saying is morally wrong to find someone guilty and punish them without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt.

And again, that's an opinion you hold. That's fine; we disagree.

But it's a correct opinion. Why do you think evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings?

It certainly appears to be the case regarding his descriptions. Of course, such an abbreviated follow-up investigation which didn't interview many of his cohorts would likely not produce evidence sufficient to convince you.

Yes, that's very probable, though at this point, perhaps more evidence is required from my epistemic perspective. I would need to know more about the interviews of the classmates, etc. But "very probable" is, well, very probable.
As for the follow-up investigation, the results are not public, but it is safe to say that it did not produce more evidence about that, because it was not even trying: they weren't assessing perjury, but sexual offenses.
Also, I think if the FBI were to investigate him for perjury, there is a good chance that they would find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

I disagree. When you ask whether or not the lie he may have told would lower our faith in his good work or not, that is indeed a reference to the nature of the lie. It doesn't matter whether the lie would affect our perception of his judicial qualities. The fact that he lied under oath, if shown to be true, is regnant.

I was not talking about the merits of the lie. The content of the lie was irrelevant to the point I was making. Your reply "I really don't care what he lied about" does not engage my point.

I'm a pretty simple guy. If you commit a felony in the process of seeking a judgeship on the highest court in the land, you're prima facie demonstrating unfitness.

I'm a guy that tries to disambiguate ambiguous assessments, like "unfitness" here, or "disqualifying". So, I considered to senses in which something could be "disqualifying" (a similar analysis would apply to "unfit"), when I said:

As for whether committing the crime of lying under oath is disqualifying, we need to be more precise about what one means by "disqualifying". If the question is whether we should significantly lower our credence that he will do a good job, then the answer is "no", given that his track record as a judge - for good or ill - is far weightier than any such evidence, so it pretty much swamps everything.
On the other hand, if he did lie under oath and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of that, then arguably he does not deserve to be in the Supreme Court, so it's disqualifying in that sense.

Note that my assessment was not based on what he lied about, but rather, on whether we are assessing his capability to perform the duties of the job, or his moral character and whether he deserves the job (or more precisely but more cumbersome, whether it is the case that he deserves not to get the job).

His fitness for the bench is certainly pertinent to your discussion.

No, it was not. If you want to discuss that, I offer to do so. Your implication I want to avoid that is false (other than my generally wanting to avoid long debates here because it's too taxing, but I already posted when I shouldn't have, so I'm playing already), and so is your implication that I'm a Kavanaugh supporter. I'm not anyone's supporter in this context.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

She may still have had an ethical obligation under ethics guidelines for psychologists, been simply mistaken, or understood the question as coaching which she was probably not doing.

Regarding how Ford understood the question, it would not have been reasonable to interpret it in a way that would make what Merrick described not require an affirmative answer. In fact, unless he lied, the previous question should have had an affirmative answer as well. Take a look at the exchange (bold mine).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nscript/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2f7866e40a54

FORD: Based on the advice of the counsel, I was happy to undergo the polygraph test, although I found it extremely stressful, much longer than I anticipated. I told my whole life story, I felt like, but I endured it. It was fine.

MITCHELL: I understand they can be that way.

Have you ever taken any other polygraphs in your life?

FORD: Never.

MITCHELL: OK. You went to see a gentleman by the name of Jeremiah Hanafin to serve as the polygrapher. Did anyone advise you on that choice?

FORD: Yes, I believe his name was Jerry.

MITCHELL: Jerry Hanafin.

FORD: Yeah.

MITCHELL: OK. Did anyone advise you on that choice?

FORD: I don’t understand the — the — yeah, I didn’t choose him myself. He was the person that came to do the polygraph test.

MITCHELL: OK. He actually conducted the polygraph, not in his office in Virginia, but actually, at the hotel next to Baltimore Washington Airport. Is that right?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: Why was that location chosen for the polygraph?

FORD: I had left my grandmother’s funeral at Fort Lincoln Cemetery that day, and was on tight schedule to get a plane to Manchester, New Hampshire, so he was willing to come to me, which was appreciated.

MITCHELL: So he administered a polygraph on the day that you attended your grandmother’s funeral.

FORD: Yeah, correct.

MITCHELL: OK.

FORD: Or it might have been the next day. I spent the night in a hotel, so (inaudible) the exact day.

MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?

FORD: Never.

MITCHELL: And I don’t just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that.

FORD: No. I was scared of the test itself, but was comfortable that I could tell the information, and the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. I didn’t expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

Compare this to what Merrick said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html

“I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.”

There is no reasonable way in which that description might be interepreted as not fitting the criteria in the bolded questions above.

But moreover, even if Ford had not understood the questions properly - which, given their clarity, would be her fault -, the fact is that after Merrick's statement was made public (officially, his name isn't public, but that's not the point), his statement was explicitly rejected by McLean and Ford's attorneys:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

Dr. Blasey’s camp also rejected the account. “She stands by her testimony,” a member of her legal team said in a statement.

So, there is no issue of interpretation. There is someone who lied in a sworn statement and/or under oath. We do not know who.

As to your other point, regarding potential "ethical obligation under ethics guidelines for psychologists", I disagree, because:

1. She does not have any such guidelines. He is a research psychologists. The professional guidelines apply to her job, but she was not doing research.
2. Her boyfriend was there - or else, he was lying. If he was there, neither Ford nor McLean could reasonably think there was any confidentiality. But then again, she already must have known that. Else, he lied and committed a felony.
3. She was under an obligation to tell the truth before the Senate. She either knew or should have known that at the time. But her attorneys certainly knew that, and continued to deny Merrick's claims.
4. McLean kept denying it. She is no psychologist. If they're lying, they're falsely accusing Merrick of lying and committing a felony - for all intents and purposes, if not directly. On the other hand, if he is lying, he's committed a felony.

I don't know who did it, but for sure someone lied and committed at least one felony here.

In any case, I'm not seeing how this is relevant to anything strongly against her testimony unless you want to say she deliberately is making something up and fooled the polygraph as part of a conspiracy [by George Soros] which I don't believe because it's silly.

It undermines her credibility. There is a reasonable chance that she is lying about that, and further, she keeps accusing an innocent man of what would be a felony.
Of course, there is also a reasonable chance that she is telling the truth, Merrick is lying, and he is trying for whatever reason to derail her case. But that we don't know which one is factored into the probabilistic assessment for the whole thing, considering the probability of her willingness to falsely accuse people of felonies. Obviously, Merrick's credibility takes a hit as well.

That said, I don't think this is decisive or required to conclude there is not a sufficient case here (as I mentioned, you can see Mitchell's analysis for more details).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don,

I've been doing more research with respect to your HIPAA objection. It turns out that Ford is a research psychologist, not a clinical psychologist. She does not have patients, and no advice she gives fall under doctor-patient confidentiality. By the way, if Merrick is not lying, he was present when Ford was giving polygraph advice to McLean, so even if she had been a clinical psychologist, I don't think this could have been considered confidential. But it's a moot point, anyway, for the aforementioned reasons.

And yes, of course, maybe Merrick was lying. But maybe he was not. We don't know.

Renate Alumnus?

Oh yeah, uh, that means we, uh, used to do our homework with her. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Yeah, he very probably lied about what that meant - and maybe also by claiming to have had sex with her (in the yearbook), though that one wasn't under oath.

Probably?!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Don,

I've been doing more research with respect to your HIPAA objection. It turns out that Ford is a research psychologist, not a clinical psychologist. She does not have patients, and no advice she gives fall under doctor-patient confidentiality. By the way, if Merrick is not lying, he was present when Ford was giving polygraph advice to McLean, so even if she had been a clinical psychologist, I don't think this could have been considered confidential. But it's a moot point, anyway, for the aforementioned reasons.

And yes, of course, maybe Merrick was lying. But maybe he was not. We don't know.

Renate Alumnus?

Oh yeah, uh, that means we, uh, used to do our homework with her. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Yeah, he very probably lied about what that meant - and maybe also by claiming to have had sex with her (in the yearbook), though that one wasn't under oath.

Probably?!

Very.