Lies About Kavanaugh and Preposterous Logic to the Forefront

A woman accusing Kavanaugh retracted her statement and deleted the accusation. Meanwhile, stupidity to the forefront.

Let's check out the logic of Twitter poster Heather Lou.

HL quickly corrected the typo to "carries" so please ignore that. People make typos all the time and it is not relevant to the discussion.

The logic presented is important. I have have seen numerous similar accusations "Kavanaugh has everything to gain by lying."

By such logic every person accused of anything is guilty. They either admit it, or they are accused of lying.

Guilt by Accusation

The logic is fatally broken because it presumes guilt: "of course he would deny it".

Actually, people confess to things all the time, even if the percentage is low.

More importantly, and in direct contrast to exceptionally fuzzy details claimed by Ford, Kavanaugh issued very specific denials.

By stating he was not at any such party, he opened himself to to a witness coming forward to say that he was indeed there.

I discussed this yesterday in Kavanaugh vs the Dilbert Lie Test

The post involves discussion by Dilbert creator Scott Adams in how to tell whether or not someone is lying. If you missed that article please give it a look.

The /#MeToo'ers and people like HL do not give a damn about real logic, or tells as discussed above.

They prefer to hide by nonsensical sayings that assume guilt. I will give HL a chance to re-think this and if she admits the silliness of her "guilt by accusation" Tweet, I will be happy to update this post.

Ed Whelan

Highly respected political commentator Ed Whelan created quite a stir with this Tweet.

Politico reports Kavanaugh Saga Sets Washington Rumor Mill on Fire

> On Tuesday evening, Ed Whelan, a conservative activist and legal commentator, posted a remarkable claim about the charge of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

> “By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter,” Whelan wrote. “Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful. There will be no cloud over him.”

> In a follow-up tweet, he added for good measure: “Senator [Dianne] Feinstein will soon be apologizing to Judge Kavanaugh.” Feinstein is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the first senator to learn about the accusation against Kavanaugh.

> Whelan, who is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, has since remained cryptically tight-lipped. But his tweet, along with the perception that he is a sober-minded straight shooter, triggered intense speculation among conservatives and even White House aides about whether he had information that could acquit Kavanaugh.

> Adding to the intrigue, Whelan has told at least three associates that his confidence level in his assertions is “close to 100 percent.”

It's easy to speculate: Perhaps someone who was at the party denies Kavanaugh was there.

Such speculations are best left aside so I await Whelan's blockbuster. I am even open to the possibility there is no real blockbuster. But here's an interesting follow-up.

Oops Department

Here's a big one in the Oops Department

The Woman Lied

Bookman is from the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The woman he referred to, Cristina King Miranda, lied.

The NPR discusses the setup: Kavanaugh Accuser's Classmate: 'That It Happened Or Not, I Have No Idea'

> A former classmate of Christine Blasey Ford tells NPR that she does not know if an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh took place as she first suggested on social media.

> "That it happened or not, I have no idea," told NPR's Nina Totenberg. "I can't say that it did or didn't."

> That's different from what Miranda wrote Wednesday in a now-deleted Facebook post that stated definitively, "The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school."

"Empowered" to Lie

"In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen]," Miranda told NPR. "I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter."

Well, when you are "sure" something "probably" happened then you state emphatically that it did, yes, the media will follow you.

No More Interviews

Another lie bites the dust.

Unfortunately, the presumption of guilt remains even though Ford does not have the courage to step forward.

Note: shortly after I penned that, it appears Ford is willing to testify: Kavanaugh Accuser Opens Negotiations on Testimony Next Week

Republicans had decided to hire an outside counsel to lead their questioning of Dr. Blasey, rather than the committee members themselves, according to a Republican Senate official familiar with the decision. Although they have yet to hire someone to fill the role, the Republicans have been eager to avoid the image of 11 male senators questioning Dr. Blasey about her account.

Instead, they are seeking to enlist the help of an experienced litigator familiar with assault cases.

My conclusion does not come close to changing.

Overwhelming Conclusion

Ford is confusing Kavanaugh with someone else, either purposely or accidentally.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (9)
No. 1-8
Irondoor
Irondoor

What are the "facts" of this story, so far?

. There was a pool party 35 years ago. Lots of them. . Ford believes she was at one and that someone groped her. . She wrote a letter to someone and said the groper was Kavanaugh. . He denies it, and says he wasn't at the party.

There are no other "facts", but there are some strange other things surrounding:

. Nobody who has been named, other than Kavanaugh, is currently willing to testify under oath and in a public or private hearing before the committee.

. The others who have been named (two boys), have refuted Ford's claims and said they were not at the party or don't recall the particular party.

. The Dems want to subpoena these two "boys" and force them to testify under oath, but they cannot compel them to "recall" things they can't recall. Same with Hillary.

. Ford and the Dems want the FBI to investigate. The FBI doesn't investigate anything that is not related to Federal crimes. There is nothing to investigate, since there are no facts (date, time, place, etc.) to go on. The Dems know this, but is sounds good to the panting public to demand an FBI investigation.

. Next week will be showdown time.

TFrustrated
TFrustrated

This "allegation" should be handled in a gender neutral manner. Questions of alcohol, moral character, number of relations and the "hard questions" need to be be asked in a firm but direct way. If we are going to have trials in public opinion, then the direct testimony needs to be cross examined with the hard questions. Character: Notes from the counseling session. Why were you in counseling? Drugs, alcohol, sexual, depression, what was your state of mind and how did other issues color your sessions? These are not "victim shaming", understanding the "notes in the context of how they were taken" is extremely relevant.

Once anyone makes accusations that are so damaging, it does not matter the gender. Libel and exagerations should be cross examined and prosecuted in the same court. This character assassination needs to be tried in the court of public opinion as well. No question should be restricted because of gender. Equal rights in any court.

Scag_man
Scag_man

Most of this is moot. The Dems have one goal, and one goal only...to delay the vote on Kavanaugh until 2019 when they think they will control the senate. This Ford story is a hail Mary pass toward that goal (and a damn good one). They care no more about Ms. Ford than they did about Bill Clinton's victims who were dismissed as liars. They care only about defeating Kavanaugh and are willing to do it at any expense.

Kinuachdrach
Kinuachdrach

We can never know for sure what happened long, long ago in a universe far, far away -- but we can see what is happening now. One of the strangest things happening now is the purging of the accuser's on-line presence -- which at least creates the appearance that the accuser has something to hide.

It is easy for an individual to cancel an account with Twitter or Facebook -- but some of the other things which have happened in the last few days needed someone with real stroke to accomplish -- 'disappearing' comments made by former students on Rate My Professor; 'vanishing' her high school year books. Highly suspicious!

The only real question now about the accuser is whether (1) she is an active participant in a deliberate fraudulent character assassination, or (2) she is a victim of the Democrat apparatus, unwittingly being manipulated & used by others?

Latkes
Latkes

Dianne F. molested me at a party in Stanford in 1954. I remember the details vaguely, but I am sure she assaulted me after putting drugs in my drink. FBI should investigate. #metoo