Trump vs. Kavanaugh
I’m going to highlight some comments made by “Bauxite” about the Carroll jury verdict. I’m not trying to pick on Bauxite, but the comments offer me an opportunity to clarify some points.
From Bauxite:
…[I]f you want to prove that juries are going to reach unjust verdicts because of political bias, this verdict against Trump with Trump’s history and behavior just isn’t going to move the needle to anyone who isn’t already a partisan of the right.
I never said it would, and I’m in complete agreement with Bauxite there.
A question from Bauxite:
Would a NYC jury have found against Kavanaugh on the Kavanaugh facts in your hypothetical? I don’t know. It would have been a very different case. Kavanaugh would likely have taken the stand and wouldn’t have insulted the defendant (and the defendant’s lawyer) with the “not my type” drivel.
The thought that Kavanaugh taking the stand would have helped Kavanaugh flies in the face of the – pardon the word – evidence. Many of you may recall how people not on the right reacted to Kavanaugh’s actual Congressional testimony, which was to feel (or feign) outrage about his spirited and sometimes emotional defense of himself and some of the righteous anger he displayed at being falsely accused. If you don’t remember, you can refresh your memory by looking at a few articles I found by searching for mere seconds, such as this, this, and this. I can also attest that, of quite a few Democrat friends I spoke to at the time, they all reviled Kavanaugh for his testimony and it left them even more convinced that he was guilty.
So no, I doubt Kavanaugh would have said that Carroll (or Ford, had she sued him civilly) was not his type. But whatever he did say would have engendered rage in Democrat listeners and would have increased their feeling that he was guilty. And probably every single person on a New York jury such as the Carroll case jury would be a Democrat.
Bauxite continues:
Kavanaugh had nothing like the Access Hollywood tape.
True, but as demonstrated above, it doesn’t matter. Or perhaps they would have come up with some witness who would testify to something offensive Kavanaugh once said about women or sex.
More:
Mark Judge and Leland Kaiser would have testified that they had no recollection of the party, with Leland Kaiser testifying that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh. Also, Kavanaugh’s representation would have been able to probe all of the other inconsistencies in Ford’s story, such as the purported fear of flying, the reasons for the second front door in her home, and the like…
…Carroll’s story just didn’t have the inconsistencies of Ford’s story.
The only reason there would have been other witnesses to testify was that Ford had come up with a scenario that had possible witnesses. But Ford or someone else could easily have come up with a scenario much like Carroll’s: no possible witnesses, no time, just a place and a story. Impossible to defend againt and no witnesses necessary. Is that really more believable than one in which witnesses – some of whom are friends of Kavanaugh – deny the allegations? I certainly don’t think that such a phantom accusation is believable at all. But the Carroll jury did. I would wager they would find Judge and Keyser’s testimony easy to cast off as well. And inconsistencies? Carroll had plenty of them (see this for some of them). They were ignored.
I want to reiterate that most people have trouble being objective about evidence, and they can find rationalizations to come to conclusions they already are leaning towards. Politics itself – not just Trump, but politics – often is one of those things about which people feel strongly and have strong biases. This is reflected in trials in which politicians are the defendants. Trump elicits very strong feelings, but so did Kavanaugh, a person of very different character and history. Same for Clarence Thomas, who is still considered by every Democrat I know to have been guilty of harassing Anita Hill way back when.
Sexual accusations are among the most powerful tools against politicians, particularly male politicians. I wish juries were more wary of such accusations especially when made after a long passage of time. But I realize that is almost certainly a futile hope.
NOTE: Here’s Alan Dershowitz on the verdict.
So to sum up, basically when you have a jury that is deeply emotionally prejudiced against a defendant, taking the stand is only going to hurt such a defendant. But in such cases everthing else is stacked against the defendant anyway.
Obviously the answer is better jury selection. But of course we all know that that won’t ever happen in cases involving high profile Republicans in jurisdictions controlled by Democrats.
and sundance festival was still recycling charges, meanwhile ketanji has abetted criminals and terrorists, and was put on the court by the dark money gang demand justice (which was also behind the kavanaugh sliming) and richly rewarded by bertelsmann, who paid off obama, for services
Ah Dersh, ye’ nailed it:
“…It is also hard to reconcile the jury’s finding that he did not rape her with its finding that he maliciously defamed her by essentially saying that he did not rape her… ”
So much funnier than Larry David.
No wonder he can’t stand you any more…
(Alas, it turns out that Trump has become a bigger ham sandwich that I thought—well, courtesy of NYC’s gracious, cultured, caring, intelligent and concerned jury—for now, at least. Let’s hope that this particular ham sandwich can launch a successful appeal…)
this is when they drop the anvil on the anchor,
as we know miss guiffre made some unfounded charges against dershowitz, that came to naught, and she settled with prince andrew
Re: “Kavanaugh was guilty…”
Of course he was “guilty.” The “crime” he was accused of was being a normal male teenager! I know that I drank beer before I was supposed to and I tried to get fresh with some of my female classmates when all of us were similarly naughty.
K was accused of misbehavin’ as a high school student! There was no proof, of course, and K, unlike me, was able to produce contemporaneous calendars, and eye witnesses. He committed no crime, not even allegedly, other than being a normal American boy in the 20th century.
We have abandoned all common sense in this country. If/when we can take over again, we must have no mercy on our enemies on the left. Start with politicians on Epstein’s list, make them defend Sen. Byrd, and relentlessly go after Hunter.
No mercy.
“Of course he was “guilty.” The “crime” he was accused of was being a…”
…threat to the leftist agenda.
I want to reiterate that most people have trouble being objective about evidence, and they can find rationalizations to come to conclusions they already are leaning towards.
I would argue that people also have trouble being even a little analytical about the evidence presented in trial.
I’ve been on 3 juries, once an alternate, and in two deliberations. The first was something of an eye opener.
I wasn’t a foreman and I sat back and listened for a while during deliberations. After a modest amount of relatively unproductive hemming and hawing, and thrashing around I interjected something on-point. Given that I can be opinionated, I deliberately went the other way with my verbiage, and stated things in a rather tentative manner. Within minutes, everyone dropped in line with it. Huh!?
I think I let another charge or topic go by without comment, then with the third one when things started rambling, I commented again, with the same result as before. Seriously?
It’s also true that the second jury deliberations I was a part of, did not go that way at all.
That first jury really shook my confidence in the system a bit.
neo – I think your argument goes beyond the facts at issue. Yes, Ford could have come up with a story that didn’t include any witnesses, but she didn’t. (I don’t think her story would have worked without witnesses, frankly, because she needed an explanation of how she and Kavanaugh met in the first place. I think they thought that Kaiser could be cajoled or bullied into either lying or hedging the truth a bit.) Carroll’s “we ran into each other and started flirting in a department store” was at least plausible since both Carroll and Trump could reasonably have patronized the same locations at the time.
But I don’t think you give an adequate account of the elephant in the room, which is the uniqueness of Trump. Trump is a cad with a history of flagrant marital infidelity and disrespectful verbal treatment of women. His trial strategy for this case was somewhere between foolish and disasterous. Good grief, he misidentified a photo of Carroll as depicting Marla Maples, his second ex-wife. This after basing his defense on Carroll not being his “type.” (Marla Maples was at least close enough to Trump’s “type” to inspire him to leave his first wife.)
I don’t think you can hand-wave those those Trump-specific elements away. As I said, maybe Kavanugh would have been found liable even if you take away the Trump history and missteps. But his history and his misteps were a big part of this case, and arguably a determinitive part. I don’t think one can say with any certainty that a Kavanauqh trial would turn out the same way without them.
What’s very scary is that the “time expired” law was extended from Thanksgiving of last year to Thanksgiving of this year just for this “offense”, just for this defendant, just for “this one time”. Moving such laws around for convenience is not what our country was founded upon. This time it’s for getting Trump, next time, it might be for getting us.
I can also attest that, of quite a few Democrat friends I spoke to at the time, they all reviled Kavanaugh for his testimony and it left them even more convinced that he was guilty.
==
Your friends are people of unjust disposition.
was at least plausible since both Carroll and Trump could reasonably have patronized the same locations at the time.
==
There are 1.6 million people living in Manhattan. Let go of Neo’s leg.
Art Deco:
Not really. The funny thing – and I don’t mean funny ha-ha – is that people are well able to compartmentalize their thinking. Politics twists people’s judgments, and it does so on right and left (ignorance helps, too). I’ve seen very few people who are able to be objective and who are also well-informed, although most people think they are.
I think what finally destroyed the Ford allegation was being forced to narrow the window in which the incident supposedly occurred. Kavanaugh had documented his activities at the time, and his calendar of events didn’t have him where Ford claimed him to be. Trump wasn’t given this luxury.
I don’t really know how the trial went, as I had no interest in following it. I did my own research on Carroll, and found her detestable. That someone would have the opinion she is a liar and not their type seems perfectly reasonable to me. What does amaze me was the defense not hitting her harder. The claim was they were prevented, but I wonder how hard they tried. If they tried as hard as Trump wants to believe, then there should be grounds for a successful appeal, even in NY. Otherwise, I think his defense team let him down.
I say this because there seems so many avenues to attack. Carroll’s character is problematic to the point I think she might be a psychopath. She does archery with photographic targets of people she hates. I know people who shoot with guns as well bows and arrows. They would have issues with a person like Carroll. Then there is the dress, that Trump claims was inadmissible. I’d be curious as to why, since it was the only physical evidence. As the only physical evidence, if not admissible; the defense should have harped on it so long until someone begged to mention it. Then there is the store. Does it have no one watching dressing rooms? What was their policy at the time for the use of those rooms? Does anyone at the store remember either party frequenting the store?
That’s just a few things from the little I know. Still, I find it odd that Trump’s Access Hollywood tape was admissible, but what about Carroll’s The Observer interview, in which she boasts of having a Tinder account during the period she claimed not to have sex. She even boasts the women should have as many men as they can. I found the article, because it discussed her choice of targets for archery, which included celebrity figures like Bill O’Reilly, but not Trump. Trump wasn’t president (so no worries about Secret Service investigation), he supposedly raped her, and he was popular on the NBC series “The Apprentice”. Why no animosity against him?
Sandra Congleton:
It was far more clever than that. It was done for this plaintiff, but any plaintiff could take advantage of it and so the fact that it was aimed at Trump was subject to plausible (or at least arguably plausible) denial.
But I don’t think you give an adequate account of the elephant in the room, which is the uniqueness of Trump. Trump is a cad with a history of flagrant marital infidelity and disrespectful verbal treatment of women.
The smell of TDS is strong in this one. Trump knew that the jury was 95% Democrats who hated him. His appearance would be the cover photo on every leftist publication. If he appeals this, I expect he will win, depending only on the appeals court. There are probably half a dozen other harpies being funded by Epstein visitor Reid Hoffman who are waiting their turn.
Of course he was “guilty.” The “crime” he was accused of was being a normal male teenager!
==
This is a recurrent theme with leftoid discourse. See, for example, the Duke rape case. I was polaxed when a man who claimed to be a bank compliance officer (and a member of Chaminade High School’s class of 1985) was stomping on Colin Finnerty for the unpardonable offense of consuming beer 20 months before the State of North Carolina said such would be permitted. The pretense was disgusting.
==
If you remember that leftoid discourse is driven by status considerations and their reaction to everything is driven by where they’ve placed the subject on some totem pole they’ve constructed in their rancid little brain, it all makes much more sense. (Note, high school students think the same way). Such a mode of thinking is incongruent with a just disposition. You cannot be fair in any circumstance.
Leland:
The only thing that destroyed the Ford allegations was that there were enough Republicans voting. The Senate vote was 50 to 48 in his favor; the GOP held 51 seats at the time but one GOP member was absent for his daughter’s wedding.
Here’s what happened, in case you forgot:
Not really. The funny thing – and I don’t mean funny ha-ha – is that people are well able to compartmentalize their thinking.
==
Not buying. The sort of which you speak in my experience are of unsound judgment in every circumstance. It’s all about their feelz. In some venues, it’s about the devious office-political game they’re playing.
Bauxite:
You still don’t get it.
This can happen to anyone if the left wants to get them. That includes you. It would be harder to accuse a woman, of course, so if you’re a woman you’re probably safe from being accused of rape in a dressing room. But maybe not. Women can rape, too.
Kavanaugh would have been found guilty by the same court.
Art Deco:
I wouldn’t expect you to buy it. Nevertheless it is the case.
Speaking of Orwellian juries,
Proud Boys Juror Suggests Lack of Evidence Was Proof of Guilt in ‘Seditious Conspiracy’
No critic of Trump has, to my knowledge, truthfully represented the “Access Hollywood” comments (he said, looking in Bauxite’s direction). People who oppose Trump seem to feel they have a moral license to misrepresent anything about him that they wish.
To say his “Access Hollywood” comments indicate a “propensity” to commit sexual assault is as ridiculous as his saying “I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue” indicates a propensity to murder.
The man’s character is known and there’s no valid moral reason to lie.
I had put this comment on another post, but that post is [far down on the site], so I thought I’d replace it, here:
I don’t mean to ruffle anyone’s feathers, but here are my opinion(s) on this event:
1] I’m hoping that Trump can get a retrial on this case, + be found not guilty.
If he can’t do that, then I think his chance to run for President, in any year, is over.
The American public does not forgive someone who has been found guilty / liable of rape, or other sexual crimes.
The US press doesn’t either.
All we have to do is, [in my words] – look at the “he said vs. she said”-type trial of the boxer, Mike Tyson. In the court case- it was the accuser’s word against his, and the jury sided with the accuser.
So after that, the court found him guilty.
So, after being found guilty, most of the US public, + the US press, treated him like- one of the most hideous people on earth, or one of the most hideous monsters on earth. Everyone stays away from MIke Tyson like a plague.
It’s now almost impossible for Mike Tyson to get work: in boxing…his field, or in TV or films, or in any- American job or foreign job.
Most likely, the public won’t forgive him, or think he might be innocent, because- most of the American public [does not handle, or approach]- sexual issues, or sexual crimes issues, with the needed amount of adult maturity] to handle those issues properly.
I have no example, over the past 20 years or longer, of any American: [celebrity person, government office holder, President, governor, actor or actress, sports person, or any other person], who has 1] been found guilty/liable for [a rape or molestation, or another sexual crime], and 2] if needed, having shown remorse + asked for the public’s forgiveness, [has gotten] that forgiveness, and has gotten a chance to rebuild their life and reputation, [after] that forgiveness.
That is not a tradition that the public has created, as of yet.
So- I think it is very likely that: if Trump can’t, 1] get a retrial in this case, and 2] be found not guilty in this case, [before, or during the 2024 President’s race], then he will have no chance to be voted in as the US President.
He will not get the needed votes for that race.
If he can’t clear his name, and his reputation, in a court of law-then he won’t have a chance to become the US president, because the public, and the voters will say: [I do not want to vote for that rapist].
The voters will also say to each other: [you can’t vote for that rapist. That would be a morally bad thing to do].
The public, and the press, do not have a tradition of [forgiving people for being found guilty of rape, or other sexual crimes].
From what I’ve seen: if Trump can’t clear his name, by being found not guilty…or not liable…in a retrial in this case, then most likely: he will not stand a chance in a run for President, [and people won’t give him a job in any other field], either.
The public, and the press- don’t have a tradition, of forgiving people- who have been found guilty of a rape, or have been found guilty of any another sexual crime. To proceed, he will have to clear his name in a court of law, otherwise, the voters will not support him in a run for President.
The Ford allegation against Kavanaugh has not been “destroyed” even if it has been proven false. Democrats still believe it. This is what we are up against, Bauxite’s TDS notwithstanding.
I do try to be objective, and especially about rape claims. I am opposed to sexual abuse, but I am also opposed to having men blamed unless the offense can be clearly proved. Along these lines, Tara Reade’s accusation against Joe Biden was too long ago. Because he’s a Democrat, he won’t be liable like Trump for an offense from eighteen or so years ago (if it occurred).
I have a different opinion on the Access Hollywood tape from some commenters. I think the “locker room talk” characterization is probably the right one. Big talk, without specifics, with another man, in a situation when Trump had no idea he was being recorded. But what was it he said about Hollywood that was not accurate? Shortly after this tape surfaced, we saw the Harvey Weinstein scandal explode, and it became clear, to those who didn’t know it previously, that many powerful men in entertainment took advantage of girls and women, and that many girls and women threw themselves at wealthy or powerful men in order to get screen time. Some of these females were unwilling victims, but a whole lot of them played the game to try to get ahead in an industry where good-looking females are a dime a dozen. And then we had mega-Dem donor Jeffrey Epstein and his abuse of young teenaged girls. And later, Hunter Biden.
Convincing voters that Trump is a unique cad, in a political environment awash with cads, is a propaganda campaign, and a fairly successful one.
@Bauxite
It’s painful to see someone work so hard to grasp the truth in an attempt to salve their ego and maintain their ability to gloat at the expense of those they call fellow conservatives.
Of course it does, because the reasons for the voting in both cases went far beyond the facts at issue. Were this limited to the facts at issue, this lawsuit would never have gone forward. But such is the world we live in today.
The fact that you do not seem to get this, in fact LABORIOUSLY WORK to deny it, goes beyond annoying into the realm of the willfully stupid and immoral. And while Neo said she did not intend to pick on you, I feel no such bond given how you have very blatantly and gratuitously tried to use this to pick on me and others.
And thank God for that.
Which was probably a mistake on her part, albeit one largely caused by the MUCH GREATER PUBLICILITY and the expectant higher level of scrutiny caused by the venue, that being before the Congress acting as one of the highest of legislative and judicial authorities. She could (and from her perspective probably should have) tried to make a witnessless story, as most of the other Kavanaugh accusers did I might add that would be self-evidently weaker but also harder to objectively disprove. And there was nothing inherently stopping her given the possible time.
But so would a witnessless story from Ford be “at least plausible” given the overlapping time frame and location.
And as we’ve established, we don’t think you give account of the GREATER ELEPEHANT in the room, namely the immense hatred of the left wing for conservatives and a willingness to politicize things like this.
Correct. But as Neo pointed out, Kavanaugh was not, and he was spared pretty much purely because of the venue of his hearings being Congress, which was more politically balanced and made it harder to get in quick blows.
Not really. Trump’s trial strategy had clear flaws but the point of underlining “I’m a cad who can get plenty of women, Why would I go for her?” is a good one. In a jurisdiction where the evidence was actually seriously considered, it almost certainly would have prevailed, assuming the case actually got that far rather than being rendered beyond the statute of limitations or being squashed for lack of evidence by the judge.
What Trump ultimately needed more of was the opportunity to pick apart the contradictions of Carroll’s story, not so much for the sitting jury and judge but for later litigation. But one should not be able to have someone found liable for defamation due to being a cad. You do not understand this, and it is blatantly obvious by now you do not WANT to understand this.
Agreed, and that was a fiasco on his part.
But you’re ignoring the fact that even in Kavanaugh’s case, where no such glaring mistakes like that were made, Kavanaugh ultimately survived because of party line voting. Which while likely empowered by the exposure of Ford and the other accusers as being lying charlatans (encouraging them to not break ranks and throw him to the wolves) ultimately tied to matters beyond the strict facts of the case.
No such ability to depend on party line voting existed for Trump in this case.
Neo just explained why you can, as did others. Neo just pointed out how narrowly Kavanaugh avoided destruction in Congress on grounds that were roughly as flimsy, in spite of Congress being less spectacularly biased than New York (land of Bragg) and so on.
In contrast, YOU ARE THE ONE who has continually asserted that this trial was not like the “Drive-bys” against Thomas and Kavanaugh but have not been able to provide any such evidence for it, as I have shown.
They were not nearly as big a part of this case as you want to pretend, as we have gone through.
“Arguably.”
You have no case.
You have no merit to make that claim.
You seem to know this on some level since you have all but given up attempts to make such an argument, especially when we actually bother to drill down and contrast this case and its venue with those for Thomas and Kavanaugh. In large part because that reveals the true horror of something like this, and how if you have to thank your lucky stars you can be saved by partisan politics from Congress, that is not a good sign.
But acknowledging this would mean acknowledging your “But Trump!” refrain doesn’t have the luster you want it to. It would mean acknowledging YOU WERE WRONG to tell “Trumpers” to take an L. It would mean having to walk back your degradation of your fellows on this blog and that you are not evaluating this matter half as objectively as you want to claim. And we can’t have that?
It doesn’t need to turn out “the same way”, it just needs to turn out roughly as badly or worse. And again, we have the actual Kavanaugh hearings and their venue to contrast them with. Something you have pointedly refused to do in all your posts banging on this issue.
Mendacity and idiocy are annoying to deal with at the best of times, and this is not the best of times.
@TR
Well said TR, and largely agreed. And I think that’s doubtless a large part of the point behind this kind of lawfare. And the lack of a good response to it is crippling.
As has been pointed out, Congress is different in its political makeup than a NYC jury.
C’est tout.
Nothing else matters in the K v T results.
@Turtler,
Thanks, Turtler. : )
neo, with all due respect, I’m not the one who doesn’t get it. The facts in evidence simply do not prove that Kavanaugh would have been found liable. Trump’s case had a number of disadvantages that Kavanaugh would not have had.
If a drunk driver crashes in a snow storm, that doesn’t establish that a sober driver would have also crashed in the same snow storm. You can’t change that by stressing how hard it was snowing.
The facts in evidence simply do not prove that Kavanaugh would have been found liable.
==
Now you’ve shifted to a different square on the board.
This is being overthought. Point is, the left wants to stick it to its enemies, evidence be damned. In the K case, they were slightly outnumbered. In the T case, they were the entire jury.
Racking what’s left of our rational processes to think like a juror doing juror stuff in each case is a complete waste of thought juice.
The left doesn’t care about evidence. Irrelevant.
See the jury in a Proud Boys case which concluded that the lack of evidence PROVED a conspiracy.
Nope. From here on out, count up the jury’s political leanings and forget the Perry Mason Moment. Meaningless.
they are npc’s, curiously the people who need to be cancelled never do, they flourish like weeds, and Gotham thinks further into the mud,
The left doesn’t care about evidence. Irrelevant.
Precisely.
If a drunk driver crashes in a snow storm, that doesn’t establish that a sober driver would have also crashed in the same snow storm.
==
That’s a stupid analogy.
@Bauxite
You don’t give all due respect. I’ve already documented your nasty habit of gaslighting when you’re losing an argument or otherwise can’t riposte. So drop it.
Then prove it by actually coming up with a half-coherent counter argument.
Because pretty much every attempt you’ve made to try and argue this problem was specifically about Trump and that it was different from the Thomas and Kavanaugh issue because Trump have collapsed from the arcane art of *actually looking at what happened with Thomas and especially Kavanaugh* and recognizing that the crucial factors that were different weren’t about Trump. Because as much as you try to convince yourself otherwise, the main issue isn’t Trump, who while often making his problems worse (though at times also making them BETTER) didn’t start this problem.
Because it’s a fucking counterfactual you simpering sophist.
The problem is the facts in evidence ALSO simply do not prove that Trump would have been found liable had his jury been the US Congress which is what you are implicitly implying (whether you are competent and self-aware enough to know so or not). Indeed, we have significant evidence from the collapse of the Jan 6th Committee that Trump also would have survived charges like Carroll’s had they been brought through the medium Ford etc. al. had to do.
In essence, your staggering TDS and dishonesty is leading to you trying to flip the Burden of Proof, make us try to (dis)prove your hypothetical, and then telling Trumpers to “take an L” because this supposedly indicates how bad the Bad Orange Whale is.
In reality it just underlines you don’t remember what happened with Thomas and especially Kavanaugh, haven’t bothered looking at the vast gulfs in the “Jury” between this latest civil suit and what Trump, Kavanaugh, and Thomas had to face with Congress, and are pointedly ignoring the contrary evidence.
All while saying we are the ones who have to definitively disprove the counterfactual you’ve asserted and that if we can’t we are the ones who don’t get it.
I give people due courtesy and assume good will, but that is no longer possible with the drum beat of nonsense coming out of you. And in particular this makes me believe you are in fact acting in bad will, even moreso than when I caught you trying to gaslight me.
Correct.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT DISADVANTAGES HAD BASICALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP PERSONALLY.
As people like myself and our host have noted to you ad infinitum.
The most important fact of the matter is like Trump dealing with the Jan 6th Committee, Kavanaugh’s cases were argued in the Congress, which for all of its problems and swampyness is not a left wing preserve quite yet. And indeed there were JUST BARELY enough Republican (and Manchin) votes to squeeze him through the gauntlet.
This was obviously not going to be the case for a freaking New York City Jury Trial.
The fact that you obsess so much about the real and alleged differences between the Trump Civil Suit case and the Kavanaugh and Thomas hearings (and the Trump Jan 6th Hearings, but of course you don’t bother acknowledging those in this context because they undermine the “BUT TRUMP” narrative ) while COMPLETELY IGNORING the partisan makeup of the two relevant “Juries” and the party line voting (confirmed in the case of the Kavanaugh confirmation, and probable in the New York Jury Civil Suit) speaks volumes. This is BY FAR ONE OF the MOST. IMPORTANT differences, but yet it goes Completely Unmentioned by you. I wonder why?
You’re a goddamn drunk clinging to a lamp post. Trying to use cherry picked evidence for support rather than illumination, which is why you cannot muster actual counter-arguments for what we raise.
Merely rage and claim how we just “don’t get it” in spite of how even a cursory look at our analysis of the various factors indicates we “get it” far more than you do.
Are you in some kind of bet to make the worst possible goddamn analogies? Because that makes sense.
Technically speaking you are correct. The problem is, like basically the rest of your bad faith arguments, it is purposefully framed in a blindingly bad and dishonest fashion.
If a sober driver skidded and barely managed to avoid crashing in a much more favorable environment (such as a divided, highly public Congress hearing with just enough Republican votes to squeeze him through), that is VERY SOLID CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE that the sober driver would have crashed or otherwise gone down in a measurably more severe snow storm (a New York City Jury Trial that was very, very obviously not decided on the merits or lack thereof of the case, as Dershowitz pointed out*).
We don’t need to magically conjure up the same snow storm and demand the sober driver to drive it in order to draw reasonable inferences, and indeed often inferences of such a high degree of probability they approach certainty.
This is something you have never addressed with any degree of competence. Not in your responses to me, not in your responses to Neo, not in other responses. Because it seriously guts your “Drunk Driver/Blame Trump” analogy.
EDIT:
It’s also noting that in your previous post in the previous thread you noted:
Of course, this collapses almost immediately when you observe from the likes of Dershowitz, who while unconventional is hardly a “partisan of the right” but had the needle move for him.
Because in your TDS-swamped fumes and obsession with getting “Trumpers” to take an “L” and fixation on the electoral politics side of the matter (rather than on ethics or probabilities for other conservatives going through a similar ordeal) you underline how little attention you have actually paid to the matters you speak of with SUCH competence.
And instead you double down and double down and double down again.
Others see this nonsense and note it seems off, but they might not elaborate on what it is and why it is wrong. But I am willing to give an effort and Neo certainly is.
Turtler
Why?
@Richard Aubrey
Why what?
Why the effort wrt B?
@Richard Aubrey
Why not? It helps process this nonsense without going crazier, and if it helps anyone else break down the problems with this I’m game.
“Carroll’s story just didn’t have the inconsistencies of Ford’s story.”
Its hard for their to be any inconsistencies when the story contains no facts.
It’s hard for there to be any inconsistencies when the story contains no facts.
That spot-on riposte sits like a cherry on the pile of innumerable instances of hostile irrationality in blue cities and their barbaric jury pools. They are dystopian netherworlds. The risk level for all blue city inhabitants accumulates with time. If you live in such a place and value your safety, move out and stay away.
Carroll’s story just didn’t have the inconsistencies of Ford’s story.
==
Carroll’s tale had one tiny advantage over Ford’s. Carroll could demonstrate that she and her then-husband had once met Donald and Ivana Trump on a receiving line (ca. 1987, as it happens). However, her account is outlandish to a degree that Ford’s was not (and demonstrably cribbed from an episode of Law & Order: SVU).
Turtler
Got it. Neo from time to time said she makes arguments with the unconvinceable in order to make a case to third parties reading.
Related…
Carroll (continued)
“Trump accuser Jean Carroll admits on CNN this morning she *helped* New York Dems pass the new law in 2022 that extended statute of limitations for sexual assault civil lawsuits beyond 20 years, which allowed her to sue Trump in a 1 year window….”
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1656335296085245952
H/T:
Lee Smith Twitter feed
In Lee Smith’s:
“Don Lemon was right about one thing….”(!)(Well worth a gander…)
https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1656466158118215682?cxt=HHwWhIC9kbnM-fwtAAAA
+ Bonus:
Byron Donalds defending DJT—like DJT was his bear cub—at the CNN round table (chock full ‘a surprises…
https://twitter.com/ByronDonalds/status/1656478224564604928
When I lived in LA, a city councilman named Art Snyder was a controversial guy. His political career was ended by an accusation that he had molested his daughter who was a child. This was in the midst of a custody battle with his ex-wife. Years later, the daughter, now an adult, admitted that her mother made her lie.
Trump looked pretty good in that town hall last night, at least in the clips I saw. He has been the target of more lies than any president I know of. Now, this country has become so polarized that even fair trials are gone.
My sister worked in the administration at Bergdorf Goodman in the 80’s, said she knew every inch of that building & said there’s no way anyone could have been assaulted in the dressing rooms without someone hearing or seeing something, there were just too many shoppers & employees around all the time.
Bill Serra
Not the first time that’s been said. But if you define “assault” as getting handsy in a make-out session (see Title Nine), maybe it could have happened.