Yes, she was a partisan hired by the Republicans on the committee to avoid the appearance of a panel composed only of male Senators trying to undercut the credibility a female victim. By denying her request for an investigation before her testimony and by refusing to subpoena, or even to allow, any other witnesses, the Republicans hoped to pit an inexperienced housewife against a trained lawyer -- effectively having a show trial. That plan was ruined when she turned out to be very credible, and Kavanaugh very evasive. — Dfpolis

I'm with Trump on that, not merely evasive, "Kavanaugh's testimony was 'incredible".

Are US prosecutors routinely partisan in their case management, or is she a notorious exception?

Are US prosecutors routinely partisan in their case management, or is she a notorious exception? — unenlightened

No, though many have political ambitions, they are usually not political in their prosecutions. There is a systematic bias against poor defendants, as they have over-worked defense counsels assigned by the government at no cost to them. These public defenders typically press poor defendants to avoid a trial by pleading guilty in return for a lower sentence. Defendants who can afford their own layers do better. This is not political, just one of the many hardships of being poor or advantages of being wealthy.

You need to remember that though Rachel Mitchell is prosecutor for a county in the State of Arizona, she was not working in that capacity at the Senate hearing, but was being paid by the Senate Republicans. So, she did not need to conform to the ethics required of her as a prosecutor. She was just a lawyer hired to ask questions for the Republicans.

One point in Kavanaugh's favor, even if he is guilty as charged is...

The voters of the United States elected as their leader someone for whom there is even more evidence of sexual misconduct. The democratic process has devalued personal morality, dignified demeanor, the protection of women, and prioritized other concerns. The people have spoken. Trump is just doing what he was elected to do.

Long live the Pervert Party, we are on the march!

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it. — unenlightened

The process was not designed to be just, nor was it designed to discover the truth. The process was designed to allow Senators, by whatever method they should choose, to select a Supreme Court Justice. Legislators answer to those who vote for them, and so those who feel that Kavanaugh will benefit their voters do what is needed to approve him and the others the opposite.

Had this been designed to find the truth and to determine justice, we'd have neutrals considering the issue. We'd have rules as to what counted as evidence. We'd have rules that might exclude juvenile indiscretions. We might have rules that require open exchange of evidence prior to any hearing, with exclusion the result of withholding. Fairness requires consideration by those without benefit by their decision. Fairness requires all sorts of procedural rules. In this instance, we don't even know how hefty the burden of proof is, whether it is preponderance, clear and convincing, or beyond a reasonable doubt or even something lesser. The inquisitors aren't even required to ask questions, but are permitted to offer their conclusions and express their outrage when they see fit as the witness looks on and wonders when the next question is forthcoming.

My point here is that nothing is betrayed. Rendering verdicts is the interest of judges and courts, not legislators and legislatures.

Who can blame a Senator for refusing to be a neutral when she is charged with protecting the interests of those who elected her, especially when the US system allows 5 unelected philosopher kings to steer the nation as they see fit? The stakes are so high and the rules so uncertain, who would expect anything other than the free for all we're seeing?

@Dfpolis

Yes, if Senator Feinstein put partisan advantage above honor, she could have violated Doctor Ford's request that her name not be used. Remember, the request was not that her name be kept "out of the press," it was that it not be used at all. While many may have violated Doctor Ford's confidence, Senator Feinstein chose not to. I find both their actions commendable. — Dfpolis

Everything @Rank Amateur said. I don't consider someones honor a worth argument most of the time. Especially when I doubt you'll give the same courtesy to many of the republicans. From a political perspective it is too convenient that her "virtue" lines up with waiting until the last second. Your argument could be right but I'm doubtful.

You seem not to understand the American electoral system.
1. The last time I looked, the Republicans had a 70% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
2. Even if they lost control of the Senate, the new Senate would not begin until January of 2019.
3. After the elections, there would be a lame duck session of congress giving the Republicans also two months to work their will. — Dfpolis

I think they are probably going to lose the seats necessary for pushing a candidate through. Good point on the lame duck session though. I wasn't aware they could push nominees through at that point. If they are able to it will make much of their "waiting for the last second" argument mute. This also depends on if they could get the nomination through in those 2 months.

1. As i explained above, there is no evidence that the Democrats leaked Ford's letter. So your premise is questionable at best.
2. As I also explained above, the motivation you offer makes no sense as the Republicans will maintain the majority in the senate until the end of 2018.
3. Could it not be that some Senators take their constitutional duty to advise and consent seriously and want to have the best available information? — Dfpolis

1. Yes, there is no evidence. More going with my political sense. Senator Feinstein seems honest but it doesn't mean all of her party members are. : )
2. Well said. Thanks for correcting me.
3. Yes, that is possible.

Hopefully the investigation helps clears up some of this mess.

it is too convenient that her "virtue" lines up with waiting until the last second. Your argument could be right but I'm doubtful. — yatagarasu

We need to rely on evidence, not conspiracy theories The facts, which I have enumerated previously, do not support your view. There is no evidence that Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats. It is clear that her letter was never leaked.

.

This also depends on if they could get the nomination through in those 2 months. — yatagarasu

The schedule is completely in the control of the Republican administration and Senate. They have about 90 days at this point. The average time for confirmation is 67 days.

Let us hope that the truth becomes clear.

The process was not designed to be just, nor was it designed to discover the truth. — Hanover

Yes, that is clear, as to the process, it is a job interview not a court room. But in that case, there is no reason to be overly concerned about corroboration. You get a credible negative reference, you don't ignore it and make the job offer when there are other qualified applicants.

You need to remember that though Rachel Mitchell is prosecutor for a county in the State of Arizona, she was not working in that capacity at the Senate hearing, but was being paid by the Senate Republicans. So, she did not need to conform to the ethics required of her as a prosecutor. She was just a lawyer hired to ask questions for the Republicans. — Dfpolis

Oh, if she was paid by a party and not the committee, that is more understandable. Bias against the poor and powerless is almost inevitable whatever the process. I wonder why the democrats didn't think to hire their own female prosecutor, then? I suppose they thought they were competent to do the job themselves, and didn't need the fig-leaf of gender equality...

Anyway, it comes to this; a credible complaint of sexual assault has been made, and is being ignored or dismissed in favour of party politics to the detriment of the justice system, by a committee whose only job is to preserve and enhance justice. Personally, I would not consent to serve on such a committee, and lend it any legitimacy. And that at a time when sexual offending by people in power is being exposed and talked about as never before.

Who can blame a Senator for refusing to be a neutral when she is charged with protecting the interests of those who elected her, especially when the US system allows 5 unelected philosopher kings to steer the nation as they see fit? The stakes are so high and the rules so uncertain, who would expect anything other than the free for all we're seeing? — Hanover

Exactly.

Once upon a time I too was cynical about politicians. And then I got involved in politics to a limited degree as a public safety activist. My job was to organize public meetings that would draw media coverage so that the message would be spread to a wider audience etc.

Here's how it works in the real world. 99% of those who attended the meetings would shake their fist at the politicians and demand that "Somebody needs to do something about this!" But that somebody was never the speaker (except in a small number of cases). That somebody was almost always somebody else, anybody other than the person making the big speech from the audience.

We had something for everyone to do, obtain signatures on a petition which was designed to change the state constitution. We had a petition table out in front of various stores most weekends, anybody could come and help. Few did.

What I learned from this experience is that anybody who gets elected to even local political positions soon becomes realistic about the "full of crap" nature of the public. The public shouts their full of crap slogans at the politicians and the politicians politely return more full of crap back to the audience. Once a lot of crap has been exchanged, and everybody goes home, nothing having been accomplished. If the media is present the full of crap goes full volume, because everybody likes to be on TV.

Almost all of us are full of crap on almost all issues, and some of us wind up running for office so that we can get paid to be full of crap. It's the human condition. Don't expect a fix any time soon.

However, it is true that some people really excel at being full of crap. :smile:

The biggest meeting we ever had was covered by a national TV show. So naturally, everybody wanted to be part of that and we had a big crowd. This sheriff from a neighboring county somehow wound up on stage and gave a fire breathing table pounding speech in support of the cause. He was spouting fire and brimstone like a Biblical prophet. Very impressive. All filmed by the national TV show.

I'd never met this sheriff because he was from out of our county. But I thought to myself, "This sheriff is an important new asset to our cause, I need to see how we can work together."

So I approach him in the parking lot after the meeting and introduce myself as the organizer of the meeting. He looks me straight in the eye at close range and tells me to, "Get #$%% lost", and then turns his back on me and stomps away.

Darn, where are those TV cameras when you really need'em? :smile:

However, it is true that some people really excel at being full of crap. — Jake

Indeed, and so we have the notion of holding to account, whereby we like to show folks their crap and rub their noses in it. In this case, the cameras were there, and despite the 'what do you expect' attitudes, I expect my representatives to be honest, diligent, and servants of the nation, and I reserve the right to be pissed off when they are not. That man was not fit to be sheriff, and this man is not fit to be supreme court judge. People that know that, but acquiesce in their appointment are traitors themselves to the fundamental principles of government, whether by philosopher kings or democratic representation. It is not ok to appoint another arsehole because there are already a lot of arseholes appointed.

"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light." Dylan Thomas. (no relation)

Kavanaugh case has been discussed all over the United States and on this forum as well.
Everyone everyone takes for granted that Ford was an assault victim. My personal impression from the hearings is that her story has been fabricated from scratch. And here are my reasons.
1. The woman claimed she feared traveling by air and the Senate had to postpone the hearings. But at the hearings it turned out she had traveled a lot by plane to remote places such as French Polynesia.
2. Ford named 3 witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party.
3. She was convincing answering Democrat's questions but whe asked by the prosecutor she couldn't remember how she got home located 8 miles from the assult place. The impression is Ford had no difficulty giving prepared answers and experienced evident difficulties answering prsecutor's questions that she could'n forsee.
4. When asked who paid for the poligraph test she failed to give an answer. Her attorneys explained they paid for it. What else was she paid for?
5. Ford is an experienced psychologist, she has command of special methodologies that help her to stand public pressure, questionings and interrogations .
5. Ford benefited from the K-case. She has become a celebrity and aquired a nation wide popularity.
Now suppose these my conjectures are true and the FBI investigation will reveal the whole K-case is a sham. What will the ramifications be? American political system will be dealt a mortal blow. And it is common knowledge that the most influental person in the world who hates America and has demonstrated intentions to destroy it is Russia' Putin. Hence the conclusion: Christine Blasey Ford is Putin's agent, and the Kavanaugh case is Russian conspiracy.

I wonder why the democrats didn't think to hire their own female prosecutor, then? I suppose they thought they were competent to do the job themselves, and didn't need the fig-leaf of gender equality... — unenlightened

The Democrats have two women Senators on the Committee and so have no need for a fig leaf. One of the women and several of the men are former prosecutors and pinned Kavenaugh on at least four lies, and made it clear that he did not want an FBI investigation. I should note since the advent of Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1937, no outside counsel has been called in to question a witness before. The last time outside counsel was used to question witnessesin a committee hearing was Watergate.

Anyway, it comes to this; a credible complaint of sexual assault has been made, and is being ignored or dismissed in favour of party politics to the detriment of the justice system, by a committee whose only job is to preserve and enhance justice. — unenlightened

Yes. The reason the Dems serve is to have access to the evidence and a voice in the proceedings. Also, it was Senator Coons' (Dem., Delaware) closing statement (along with a face-to-face with two sexual assault victims) that caused Senator Flake (Rep. Arizona) to demand the FBI hearing we finally got. So, while it is dirty business, giving up is not the answer.

We need to rely on evidence, not conspiracy theories The facts, which I have enumerated previously, do not support your view. There is no evidence that Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats. It is clear that her letter was never leaked. — Dfpolis

That isn't the argument. It is that the information was withheld to push back the confirmation. That all comes down to the "virtue" of Senator Feinstein vs political gamesmanship. I believe in the gamesmanship aspect because it is convenient. Your "virtue" argument is just as much of gut feeling. Whether her name was leaked or not is not my point. They could have held it with no intention of leaking and it would still benefit them. It's not like there was any chance this would have been released after the vote.

The schedule is completely in the control of the Republican administration and Senate. They have about 90 days at this point. The average time for confirmation is 67 days.

Let us hope that the truth becomes clear.

Yes. Especially if the candidate was nominated in July.

Yes. Let's hope! — Dfpolis

1. The woman claimed she feared traveling by air and the Senate had to postpone the hearings. But at the hearings it turned out she had traveled a lot by plane to remote places such as French Polynesia. — Proto

So, now Dr. Ford is being blamed for overcoming her fears? Whether of not she is afraid of flying is totally irrelevant to her testimony.

2. Ford named 3 witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party. — Proto

Would you recall a gathering 35 years ago in which nothing special happened to you? Remember, this was not even "a party" -- as Dr. Ford testified. It was a gathering before a party to take place later.

3. She was convincing answering Democrat's questions but whe asked by the prosecutor she couldn't remember how she got home located 8 miles from the assult place. — Proto

I suggest you read up on the memory of traumatic events -- after all, this is supposed to be a philosophy forum.

Research shows that physical and emotional trauma can directly affect your memory. Some of this memory loss may be a temporary way to help you cope with the trauma, and some of this memory loss may be permanent due to a severe brain injury or severe psychological trauma. — Casa Palmera Staff

These results suggest that some information (the essence, the theme) of a traumatic event might be relatively well retained in memory, while memory is impaired for many of the specific, and especially peripheral, details. — Sven‐åke Christianson & Elizabeth F. Loftus,

when subjects are negatively aroused by a scene, they process more elaborately those critical details that were the source of the emotional arousal, and they maintain or restrict the scene's boundaries. ‘Tunnel memory’ results from this greater elaboration of critical details and more focused boundaries. Tunnel memory may explain the superior recognition and recall of central, emotion‐arousing details in a traumatic event — Martin A. Safer, Sven‐Åke Christianson, Marguerite W. Autry, Karin Österlund,

4. When asked who paid for the poligraph test she failed to give an answer. Her attorneys explained they paid for it. What else was she paid for? — Proto

What relevance does this have to her credibility? I see none. Obviously her lawyers, before taking on a pro bono case, wanted to know if their prospective client was telling the truth. What is relevant is not who paid for the test, but that she passed it.

5. Ford is an experienced psychologist, she has command of special methodologies that help her to stand public pressure, questionings and interrogations . — Proto

You must not have watched her testimony. If sh had access to such methods, she needed them. I heard a notable increase in the tension of her voice as she recalled the attempted rape itself, compared to the rest of the testimony.

5. Ford benefited from the K-case. — Proto

So, you see it as a net positive to have death threats to you and your family and have to move twice -- something you would gladly do.

I must say that this is one of the most biased and unreflective analyses I have read on this forum. I suppose it comforts you, but it does little to convince anyone approaching the case with an open mind.

1. It is common for people with fear of flying to fly (see: this)

2. No one remembers every gathering they ever attended, not if there's a number of them of similar inconsequence to them. All we know is that the gathering was small, not a big party, and it may have involved swimming.

3.No one remembers every detail of significant events, but we do remember the most impactful parts. I remember an altercation I had with a kid when I was 10 - he was bigger and stronger, and pinned me to the ground. I remember no details other than who it was, roughly where we were, and most strongly: the panic I felt due to being unable to move.

4. Are you alleging, without evidence, that she was paid to make up the story? Dismiss the polygraph as evidence, if you like, but then it's just less evidence she telling the truth, not evidence she's lying.

5. Being a psychologist doesn't prepare you for an acting performance. Did she seem insincere, or did project vulnerability and fear?

6. Benefitted? She originially wanted to remain anonymous.

Personally, I am convinced she is not lying - that she experienced the assault she described. I am a bit less confident that it was Kavanaugh.

The main point she seemed false for me.
As this is a philosophical forum can anyone tell about possible ramifications of Kavanaugh case for the USA and the the world on the whole?

As this is a philosophical forum can anyone tell about possible ramifications of Kavanaugh case for the USA and the the world on the whole? — Proto

Yes, but it would be nice to have evidence and a rational argument instead of a series of irrelevant and unresarched points.

Did Kavanaugh lie about the meaning of "devil's triangle" and "boofing."

Has anyone corroborated his definitions, by checking with other contemporaneous attendees of his prep school? (I expect his friends will back him up, so we'd need to hear from people who weren't in his circle).

One thing that has been revealed, clearly, again, is how partisan politics are working. Everybody involved here--Donald Trump, the Democratic minority and Republican majority, and the nominee Kavanaugh--has again been on display, and not to everyone's credit.

National politics have always been played for high stakes, but at certain periods in the past the game has been played with better acting than it is being played now. Thinking back to the SCOTUS nominations by the much hated Richard Nixon, Warren Berger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William Rehnquist, for example. Nixon did not nominate extremists to the court. Reagan's appointments weren't scandals either -- Reagan elevated Rehnquist to CJ, and added Sandra Day O'Connor and
Antonin Scalia.

For that matter, consider the Watergate Hearings (40 odd years ago) which led to Nixon's resignation. The subject (Nixon) engaged in skulduggery and covered up as much as possible (the fatal mistake). The investigation, however, was was quite orderly and civil.

Compare all that to Kavanaugh's furious partisan rant after the Ford testimony.

We are not going to know for sure (100%) what happened, who did what to whom, who did or did not witness what, and so on. What we do know is that under pressure, Kavanaugh turned more than a bit vicious. Not a good thing for a potential SCOTUS justice to display. Not a good thing for an appellate judge to display, for that matter.

What we do know is that under pressure, Kavanaugh turned more than a bit vicious. Not a good thing for a potential SCOTUS justice to display. Not a good thing for an appellate judge to display, for that matter. — Bitter Crank

Amen

So, now Dr. Ford is being blamed for overcoming her fears? Whether of not she is afraid of flying is totally irrelevant to her testimony.
Dfpolis
You stubbornly ignore two facts that show the woman is false.
1. She traveled by air a lot for entertainment purposes visiting many remote countries as she writes in her cv.
2. When invited to the Senate hearings she refused claiming her fear of planes. Only under pressure or for money, I don't know, she agreed to fly to Washington.

What we do know is that under pressure, Kavanaugh turned more than a bit vicious. Not a good thing for a potential SCOTUS justice to display. Not a good thing for an appellate judge to display, for that matter. — Bitter Crank

That's true.

but at certain periods in the past the game has been played with better acting than it is being played now. — Bitter Crank

I recall when Bill Clinton was first elected. I was taking a class. Two of the Republicans in the room refused to give him a chance. That just seemed like ugly tribalism to me, and a lack of respect for the presidency. The radio and news programs catering to the right since then has been equally tribal. It's not surprising when the left responds in kind.

Yes, contemporaries in the area have confirmed that Kavanaugh lied about the definitions. You won't find 'devil's triangle' referring to a banal drinking game, or 'boofing' referring to farting. In fact, if we do substitute boofing for farting, then Kvanaugh's quote would mean "have you farted yet?" I mean come on...

Not surprised an "orginalist" would re-interpret past definitions in order to advance his own interests.

Kavanaugh outright lied. May have been better for him to admit that he had a drinking problem in his youth than he was able to overcome, but instead he lied under oath.

Kavanaugh case has been discussed all over the United States and on this forum as well.
Everyone everyone takes for granted that Ford was an assault victim. My personal impression from the hearings is that her story has been fabricated from scratch. And here are my reasons.
1. The woman claimed she feared traveling by air and the Senate had to postpone the hearings. But at the hearings it turned out she had traveled a lot by plane to remote places such as French Polynesia.
2. Ford named 3 witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party.
3. She was convincing answering Democrat's questions but whe asked by the prosecutor she couldn't remember how she got home located 8 miles from the assult place. The impression is Ford had no difficulty giving prepared answers and experienced evident difficulties answering prsecutor's questions that she could'n forsee.
4. When asked who paid for the poligraph test she failed to give an answer. Her attorneys explained they paid for it. What else was she paid for?
5. Ford is an experienced psychologist, she has command of special methodologies that help her to stand public pressure, questionings and interrogations .
5. Ford benefited from the K-case. She has become a celebrity and aquired a nation wide popularity.
Now suppose these my conjectures are true and the FBI investigation will reveal the whole K-case is a sham. What will the ramifications be? American political system will be dealt a mortal blow. And it is common knowledge that the most influental person in the world who hates America and has demonstrated intentions to destroy it is Russia' Putin. Hence the conclusion: Christine Blasey Ford is Putin's agent, and the Kavanaugh case is Russian conspiracy. — Proto

Excellent, one of the dumbest things I've read all week, and there was some serious competitors. Congrats.

But what a dénouement though! Some real M Night Shyamalan stuff at the end there.

I like how the idea that Ford is an agent of Putin and that this is all a big Russian conspiracy is somehow more believable then the idea that a 17-year old tried to rape a girl and is now lying about it three decades later.

From reports I've been reading, the FBI investigation will be extremely half-assed.

1 week is hardly enough. Especially considering how hard it is to establish sufficient evidence for 'beyond reasonable doubt' in cases like these. Congress would not have given the concession were it likely at all to do anything but prove Ford's allegations as unprovable. It looks like a concession for fairness, and it manages the optics a little, but there's no way it would have been granted were it not almost certainly going to exonerate that dumpster mouthed lizard and his rat bastard coworkers.

Were there time (were time made... assholes) for more comprehensive analysis she'd probably have her claims vindicated. Assuming of course all the others involved didn't weave a sufficiently consistent tapestry of lies. One of the worst fucking things about the debate IMO was that they tried to paint Ford as conspiring with the democrats through whatever relations her legal counsel had with congress; but those fucking lizards obviously collaborated to get their stories straight. Kavanaugh's statement showed clear knowledge of the questions that Ford was asked. Hypocrisy on hypocrisy, power showing it doesn't give a fuck.