Absolutely not. Psychology professors are not trained to influence and control people as Svengali or Donald Trump are able to do. You don't seem to understand what the field of psychology is about or what psychology professors do.
You don't think they know some tricks about making themselves present as more trustworthy?
There were also inconsistencies in Kavanaugh's testimony, and the one you remember about the door was actually not an inconsistency. Later investigation of the building permit showed that her testimony was accurate about the door.
As I remember the discussion, she claimed that the door was so she can have "another exit" because she was supposedly so traumatized by Kav. In reality, the door was installed because they rented out a room in the house, and it could not serve as an exit for somebody in the main part of the house.
What investigation are you referring to?
Not true. We have some evidence and a rushed FBI investigation that was micromanaged by the White House.
The only reason the FBI investigation was "rushed" was because the allegation was made so late. The goal was to delay the confirmation beyond the midterms.
And what "evidence" do you believe there was? Please be specific.
The problem with your argument is that this was not a criminal trial, where there is a presumption of innocence and strict requirements for evidence. It was a Senate confirmation hearing for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.
So uncorroborated allegations without evidence of things that supposedly happened 35 years ago should derail a confirmation?
If I allege KBJ diddled me when she was 17, but I could not remember exactly when or where, should that derail her confirmation too, or would you demand some real evidence instead of just politics of personal destruction?
The charges were very serious and needed a thorough investigation, even if it delayed the hearings.
I firmly believe that this was the Ford/Feinstein strategy - make salacious allegations in the 11th hour with the goal to delay the confirmation beyond the midterms.
Questions still hang over Kavanaugh, but, barring an unlikely impeachment, the whole matter has been rendered moot.
Exactly. I propose we end this fruitless discussion.
The confirmation hearing was a shameful act of political manipulation.
I could not agree more!
I don't remember Söze from the Senate hearing, but I know who Keyser Söze was. Great movie, wasn't it?
Indeed it was.
The Keyser in the Ford matter claimed she couldn't remember the night in question. She also said that she believed Ford was telling the truth but could not testify.
And later said she felt pressured to say that.
NY Post said:
Keyser was being pressured by Ford’s allies from high school to do more to help their friend — and things were getting dirty, according to the book.
In a group text, one woman wrote of Keyser, “Maybe one of you guys who are friends with her can have a heart to heart. I don’t care, frankly, how f–ked up her life is. A lot of us have f–ked up lives in one way or another.’’
Another texter, apparently referring to what the book called Keyser’s “addictive tendencies,’’ said, “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is. Just a thought.’’
The authors say Keyser told them, “I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply.’’
And the fact still remains that she offered no corroboration to what Ford alleged. In fact she is very skeptical.
NY Post said:
“I don’t have any confidence in the story,” Leland Keyser — who Ford has said was at the party where the alleged assault occurred — told two New York Times reporters in their book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation.”
“Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense,” Keyser insisted of Ford’s account, according to authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
[...]
“It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she’s getting home,” Keyser told the authors. “I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.”
Christine Blasey Ford’s friend now says she’s skeptical of Kavanaugh accusation
There were other witnesses that were not questioned by the FBI or the Senate hearing. And, lest you forget, neither of the principals--Ford or Kavanaugh--was even interviewed by the FBI. The investigation was a sham.
That's your opinion of the investigation. Mine is that this was a witch hunt to begin with.
Again, a limited and rushed FBI investigation is a limited and rushed FBI investigation. And Senate testimony and allowed witnesses were extremely limited. So no evidence in this case is not the powerful argument that you think it is.
No evidence was uncovered later either. Nobody came forward to do an exclusive bombshell interview. I doubt FBI would have uncovered anything more 35 years later either.
And again, the reason why the investigation had to be limited and rushed was the late timing of the allegation itself.
The timing is adequately explained in the public record, whether you want to believe it or not.
I do not. It was just too convenient with midterms coming up. It was a gambit that did not bear fruit.
That's the problem with an argument based on whataboutism. Even if you could prove that Biden's DoJ is as partisan as Trump's was, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Kavanaugh confirmation.
It disproves the claim that Trump's DOJ was uniquely partisan. As if Biden's DOJ would not defend KBJ from unsubstantiated, salacious allegations from when she was a teenager.
And why are you calling Merrick Garland a "sacrificial nominee"????
Obama knew that he will almost certainly not be confirmed from the get-go. He is not a fool, nor is he naïve.
That's why he nominated somebody who was already 64 when usually presidents go for much younger nominees who can serve many decades.
He was a legitimate nominee who was never allowed a hearing or a confirmation vote for totally partisan political reasons. If you think that the "arsonist" issue was disqualifying, that would have been addressed in the Senate hearing that HE NEVER HAD.
The trial arsonist (I do not know why you put it in scare quotes, the #BLM insurrectionist did set a fire which makes him an actual arsonist, not an "arsonist") happened recently, with Garland as AG, and would not have come in a confirmation hearing that would have been held in 2016.
Just FYI, a whataboutism argument is a logical fallacy.
It would be if I was trying to make a fallacious statement. Pointing hypocrisy is not the same as whataboutism.
www.cnn.com
Next one, let's do that.