Brett Kavanaugh, Rachel Mitchell and Republican's "Dirty-Tricks" Report
GOP-hired prosecutor questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who was hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford during the committee's hearing into allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, questioned the credibility of her accusations and called the case "weak" in her assessment of Ford's allegations.
In a memo to Senate Republicans, Mitchell details nine main points she says raise questions about the credibility of Ford's account. She concludes no prosecutor would bring the case, nor is the evidence sufficient to prevail even in a civil trial.
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," wrote Mitchell.
Mitchell cited Ford's inability to pinpoint when the alleged assault took place, her struggle to clearly identify Kavanaugh as her assailant by name, lack of key details like how she got to the party or where the party took place and inconsistencies in her account of the encounter as areas of concern in her allegations.
Mitchell's report says that Democrats and Ford's own attorneys were "likely affected Dr. Ford's account."
Memorandum prosecutor Rachel Mitchell
The prosecutor largely stuck to procedure during Thursday's day-long hearing, probing Ford on specifics of a polygraph test she took as well as relationships with people involved in her allegations.
She also asked Ford about how she had arrived at the hearing. Ford, who lives in California, had previously expressed fear of flying, although she acknowledged she took a plane in this instance and also has flown on vacations. Mitchell's report cited this portion of the hearing as questionable, saying it was not clear that her attorneys ever responded to Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's offer to send investigators to meet her in California to conduct her interview.
Mitchell, a career prosecutor with decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes, currently heads the Special Victims Division, which covers sex crimes and family violence, at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix.
© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
See the full report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RnbRO7nh-fw3Qac2itL4XzROFcf6DUei/view
This report is one-sided. It's unfair and shameful. Rachel Mitchell is the Arizona prosecutor for hire. She's a disgrace to the profession. Republicans are so desperate to seat Kavanaugh they paid for a bogus report on the taxpayer expenses. Read the full report for yourself. You will see why it is unacceptable by anyone's standard:
- She asked closed questions to Ms. Ford (tried to lock her in--discredit her story).
- She didn't talk with the woman first.
- She did no investigation.
- She didn't wait on the FBI findings (not concluded).
- She didn't mention Kavanaugh's name in the report.
- She made no mention of Kavanaugh emotional out of control behavior, belligerence, and rant.
- She used criminal standards (explain her conclusion-worse than "he said/he said") instead of a fact-finding method for the setting as required.
- At best, Ms. Mitchell's report is premature. At worst, the report is not worth the paper it is written on.
- The report is written to Republicans and not to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
These are just some of the short-coming of this report. Rachel Mitchell dirty herself and the underhanded Republicans what they wanted. She has prostituted the process and misrepresented the law of fairness, investigation, and justice. Ms. Mitchell is a disgrace to women, in general, and an enemy of survival rape victims. CM
Comments
-
Let Cotton investigate why Rachel Mitchell didn't complete questioning Brett Kavanaugh? Why is his name not in the report? why was Rachel Mitchell fired on the spot? Whose call was it? Why is it that the taxpayers didn't get its money's worth from this woman? This was a blatant misuse of the people's money. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
GOP-hired prosecutor questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who was hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford during the committee's hearing into allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, questioned the credibility of her accusations and called the case "weak" in her assessment of Ford's allegations.
In a memo to Senate Republicans, Mitchell details nine main points she says raise questions about the credibility of Ford's account. She concludes no prosecutor would bring the case, nor is the evidence sufficient to prevail even in a civil trial.
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," wrote Mitchell.
Mitchell cited Ford's inability to pinpoint when the alleged assault took place, her struggle to clearly identify Kavanaugh as her assailant by name, lack of key details like how she got to the party or where the party took place and inconsistencies in her account of the encounter as areas of concern in her allegations.
Mitchell's report says that Democrats and Ford's own attorneys were "likely affected Dr. Ford's account."
Memorandum prosecutor Rachel Mitchell
The prosecutor largely stuck to procedure during Thursday's day-long hearing, probing Ford on specifics of a polygraph test she took as well as relationships with people involved in her allegations.
She also asked Ford about how she had arrived at the hearing. Ford, who lives in California, had previously expressed fear of flying, although she acknowledged she took a plane in this instance and also has flown on vacations. Mitchell's report cited this portion of the hearing as questionable, saying it was not clear that her attorneys ever responded to Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's offer to send investigators to meet her in California to conduct her interview.
Mitchell, a career prosecutor with decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes, currently heads the Special Victims Division, which covers sex crimes and family violence, at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix.
© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
See the full report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RnbRO7nh-fw3Qac2itL4XzROFcf6DUei/view
This report is one-sided. It's unfair and shameful. Rachel Mitchell is the Arizona prosecutor for hire. She's a disgrace to the profession. Republicans are so desperate to seat Kavanaugh they paid for a bogus report on the taxpayer expenses. Read the full report for yourself. You will see why it is unacceptable by anyone's standard:
- She asked closed questions to Ms. Ford (tried to lock her in--discredit her story).
She also asked open-ended questions. Why so dishonest?
- She didn't talk with the woman first.
What does that have to do with anything? She wasn't afforded the opportunity. Remember it was Ford and her attorneys that balked all the way.
- She did no investigation.
Relevance? What should she have investigated?
- She didn't wait on the FBI findings (not concluded).
There was no FBI investigation to wait on.
- She didn't mention Kavanaugh's name in the report.
The report wasn't about him.
- She made no mention of Kavanaugh emotional out of control behavior, belligerence, and rant.
Irrelevant.
- She used criminal standards (explain her conclusion-worse than "he said/he said") instead of a fact-finding method for the setting as required.
Yes, criminal standards. To see whether the testimony was credible. It wasn't.
- At best, Ms. Mitchell's report is premature. At worst, the report is not worth the paper it is written on.
Actually it is completely accurate. So many holes in Ford's story. So many inconsistincies which I noted during the hearing.
- The report is written to Republicans and not to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
They are the ones that hired her....
These are just some of the short-coming of this report. Rachel Mitchell dirty herself and the underhanded Republicans what they wanted. She has prostituted the process and misrepresented the law of fairness, investigation, and justice. Ms. Mitchell is a disgrace to women, in general, and an enemy of survival rape victims. CM
Clearly you don't know how things work.
If anything, her major fault was that she did not go harder after Ford.
-
@reformed said: If anything, her major fault was that she did not go harder after Ford.
I find your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings to be anemic, at best. May be, Bill can enlighten you on why Ms. Mitchell's hiring, work, and report is such a disgrace and another ploy of Republican's dirty tricks. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said: If anything, her major fault was that she did not go harder after Ford.
I find your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings to be anemic, at best. May be, Bill can enlighten you on why Ms. Mitchell's hiring, work, and report is such a disgrace and another ploy of Republican's dirty tricks. CM
Ad Hominem @Bill_Coley correct? Are you going to call this one out?
That being said, I watched the hearings, I have kept close tabs on this. I'm probably one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum with regard to this issue. You have shown that you do not understand basic concepts of law and human nature in this regard. You repeatedly put out lies about this case, half truths, and misinformation.
-
@reformed said:
I find your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings to be anemic, at best. May be, Bill can enlighten you on why Ms. Mitchell's hiring, work, and report is such a disgrace and another ploy of Republican's dirty tricks. CM
Ad Hominem @Bill_Coley correct? Are you going to call this one out?
What's the subject of CM's critique, reformed? "Your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings." Your "knowledge" is a thing, an entity, something about you; it's not you.
The subject of ad hominem attacks are people, not things about people. They make declarations such as "You are a... [INSERT YOUR PREFERRED PUT-DOWN HERE]." When of whatever I have cooked for our evening meal my wife says, "Not my favorite," she's commenting on the food I prepared, not about me. I may take it as a personal attack, but it's not one.
CM criticized your "knowledge of this situation and its underworkings." In "Bill Coley's kingdom," that doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.
[NOTE: For the record and in complete transparency, I try hard not to employ the kind of critique CM offered. I don't think we advance the cause of constructive discussion of issues when we post about each other rather than the ideas and subject matters at-issue.
- CM criticized your knowledge RATHER than the subject(s) about which he questions your knowledge. I disagree with that approach.
- In response, you criticized what you believe CM has "shown" to be his failure to "understand basic concepts of law and human nature," as well as what you claim is his pattern of "repeatedly put(ting) out lies... halftruths, and misinformation," RATHER than the subjects and content you contend he doesn't understand. I disagree with your approach, too.
CM commented on something about you. You commented on something about him. When you both could have been commenting on the subject matter actually at-issue. I disagree with both of your approaches, but in my view, neither of you issued an ad hominem attack.]
-
@reformed said:
That being said, I watched the hearings, I have kept close tabs on this. I'm probably one of the most knowledgeable people on this forum with regard to this issue.The best looking person is always the one who stands in the mirror. I guess you seem to be a person who believes that "if you don't blow your own horn, there will be no music".
You have shown that you do not understand basic concepts of law and human nature in this regard. You repeatedly put out lies about this case, half truths, and misinformation.
Truth speaks for itself and written statements record its realities. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I find your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings to be anemic, at best. May be, Bill can enlighten you on why Ms. Mitchell's hiring, work, and report is such a disgrace and another ploy of Republican's dirty tricks. CM
Ad Hominem @Bill_Coley correct? Are you going to call this one out?
What's the subject of CM's critique, reformed? "Your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings." Your "knowledge" is a thing, an entity, something about you; it's not you.
The subject of ad hominem attacks are people, not things about people. They make declarations such as "You are a... [INSERT YOUR PREFERRED PUT-DOWN HERE]." When of whatever I have cooked for our evening meal my wife says, "Not my favorite," she's commenting on the food I prepared, not about me. I may take it as a personal attack, but it's not one.
CM criticized your "knowledge of this situation and its underworkings." In "Bill Coley's kingdom," that doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.
[NOTE: For the record and in complete transparency, I try hard not to employ the kind of critique CM offered. I don't think we advance the cause of constructive discussion of issues when we post about each other rather than the ideas and subject matters at-issue.
- CM criticized your knowledge RATHER than the subject(s) about which he questions your knowledge. I disagree with that approach.
- In response, you criticized what you believe CM has "shown" to be his failure to "understand basic concepts of law and human nature," as well as what you claim is his pattern of "repeatedly put(ting) out lies... halftruths, and misinformation," RATHER than the subjects and content you contend he doesn't understand. I disagree with your approach, too.
CM commented on something about you. You commented on something about him. When you both could have been commenting on the subject matter actually at-issue. I disagree with both of your approaches, but in my view, neither of you issued an ad hominem attack.]
Double standard. It was an attack on my intellect. Something you all complained about @GaoLu saying. I have demonstrated extensive knowledge on this case so for him to say otherwise was either idiotic, trolling, or a personal attack.
-
CM specified the subject of his "attack:"
"I find your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings to be anemic, at best."
CM critiqued your "knowledge" of a "situation and its unworkings." Criticism of your "knowledge" is NOT criticism of your "intellect" because "intellect" is, by definition, NOT the same thing as "knowledge."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
CM specified the subject of his "attack:"
"I find your knowledge of this situation and its underworkings to be anemic, at best."
CM critiqued your "knowledge" of a "situation and its unworkings." Criticism of your "knowledge" is NOT criticism of your "intellect" because "intellect" is, by definition, NOT the same thing as "knowledge."
It is when you have already demonstrated extensive knowledge on the subject. So notice the REST OF MY POST where I specified the options of his attack.
@reformed said:
I have demonstrated extensive knowledge on this case so for him to say otherwise was either idiotic, trolling, or a personal attack.But of course, I expected someone as unobjective as yourself to ignore that.
-
@reformed said:
It is when you have already demonstrated extensive knowledge on the subject. So notice the REST OF MY POST where I specified the options of his attack.
Whether you successfully "specified the options of his attack" is NOT relevant to the fact that he did NOT attack your "intellect," as you originally charged.
When you have "demonstrated extensive knowledge" on a subject, you are "knowledgeable," "informed," perhaps even an "expert in the field." And perhaps your "intellect" contributed to your ability to process and think about that "knowledge." But none of that changes the fact that by definition, "intellect" is NOT the same as "knowledge." Which means criticism of your "knowledge" about a matter is NOT the same as criticism of your "intellect."
"Intellect" is the capacity to process, understand, and think about information; it is NOT the collected information itself. Collections of information are called "knowledge."
@reformed said:
I have demonstrated extensive knowledge on this case so for him to say otherwise was either idiotic, trolling, or a personal attack.But of course, I expected someone as unobjective as yourself to ignore that.
You all but make my case for me, reformed. You claim to have "demonstrated extensive knowledge on this case." That means you think you have extensive "knowledge" about the case, but CM finds your "knowledge of this situation and its underworkings" to be "anemic, at best." Obviously, you and CM disagree as to your knowledge about the Kavanaugh confirmation. That's STILL NOT an attack on your intellect.
Want a solution to the argument we're having? Criticize issues, not people. Make your posts about issues, not CM (or me) and CM and I make our posts about issues, not you. He doesn't critique your "knowledge" (which is NOT to say he can't seek to correct what he believes are incorrect assertions of fact!) and you don't criticize him for "idiotic," "trolling," or attacking posts (which is NOT to say you can't seek to correct what you believe are incorrect assertions of fact!)
Posts about issues generate responses/arguments about issues. Posts about people generate responses/arguments about people. Only one of those outcomes complies with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
It is when you have already demonstrated extensive knowledge on the subject. So notice the REST OF MY POST where I specified the options of his attack.
Whether you successfully "specified the options of his attack" is NOT relevant to the fact that he did NOT attack your "intellect," as you originally charged.
We disagree.
When you have "demonstrated extensive knowledge" on a subject, you are "knowledgeable," "informed," perhaps even an "expert in the field." And perhaps your "intellect" contributed to your ability to process and think about that "knowledge." But none of that changes the fact that by definition, "intellect" is NOT the same as "knowledge." Which means criticism of your "knowledge" about a matter is NOT the same as criticism of your "intellect."
We disagree about what his post did or did not do. I gave three options of what it was, you still ignore that.
"Intellect" is the capacity to process, understand, and think about information; it is NOT the collected information itself. Collections of information are called "knowledge."
@reformed said:
I have demonstrated extensive knowledge on this case so for him to say otherwise was either idiotic, trolling, or a personal attack.But of course, I expected someone as unobjective as yourself to ignore that.
You all but make my case for me, reformed. You claim to have "demonstrated extensive knowledge on this case." That means you think you have extensive "knowledge" about the case, but CM finds your "knowledge of this situation and its underworkings" to be "anemic, at best." Obviously, you and CM disagree as to your knowledge about the Kavanaugh confirmation. That's STILL NOT an attack on your intellect.
We disagree.
Want a solution to the argument we're having? Criticize issues, not people. Make your posts about issues, not CM (or me) and CM and I make our posts about issues, not you. He doesn't critique your "knowledge" (which is NOT to say he can't seek to correct what he believes are incorrect assertions of fact!) and you don't criticize him for "idiotic," "trolling," or attacking posts (which is NOT to say you can't seek to correct what you believe are incorrect assertions of fact!)
No that isn't a solution. You routinely ignore that ideal. I know you think you don't but you do. And you are not the grand moderator or arbiter of rules and it is really quite annoying that you seem to think you are. Why not just stick to the issues if that's your passion? Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose. You are not our mother or even our Father and quite frankly you are self-righteous, and holier than thou when it comes to conduct on these forums even if it is hypocritical.
Posts about issues generate responses/arguments about issues. Posts about people generate responses/arguments about people. Only one of those outcomes complies with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
Yet here you are posting about me. You aren't criticizing ideas. You are criticizing my behavhior that you don't think follows with the CD expectation. Get over yourself Bill.
-
@reformed said:
We disagree about what his post did or did not do. I gave three options of what it was, you still ignore that.
Your three options - that CM's post was "idiotic, trolling, or a personal attack" - have nothing do with whether criticism of your "intellect" is the same as criticism of your "knowledge." By definition, it is not.
We disagree.
We "disagree" as to whether "intellect" is or is not the same as "knowledge"? That's not a matter of opinion, reformed; it's a matter of definition. You and I don't get to define words.
No that isn't a solution. You routinely ignore that ideal. I know you think you don't but you do.
Don't accuse me, reformed. Quote me (my posts). That should be an easy task since, so you claim, I "routinely ignore that ideal." Though we should note that the last time you claimed I regularly/routinely posted in a certain manner - suggesting in THIS POST that I "bully all the time" - your response to my request produced a single example, one which, when I challenged it, morphed into a simpler, much smaller accusation (that I had called Gao Lu a name).
And you are not the grand moderator or arbiter of rules and it is really quite annoying that you seem to think you are. Why not just stick to the issues if that's your passion? Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose.
Among my passions as a CD poster is compliance with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." It's always going to be "annoying" to me when CD posters question each other's intelligence or call each other "idiots" or "pigs." I'm always going to want to respond to such overt violations of the CD expectation. That you request that I (and others, I assume) allow you and other posters to engage each other without interruption in what you call "uncivilized ways" sounds to me like your endorsement of uncivil posting behavior. I find that to be a startling, albeit candid, confession on your part. But NO, I will not enable uncivil behavior in these forums via my silence.
You are not our mother or even our Father and quite frankly you are self-righteous, and holier than thou when it comes to conduct on these forums even if it is hypocritical.
Don't accuse me, reformed. Quote me.
Yet here you are posting about me. You aren't criticizing ideas. You are criticizing my behavhior that you don't think follows with the CD expectation. Get over yourself Bill.
Again your post suggests that you get it! I DO criticize behavior, but I DON'T criticize people.
And remember, this ENTIRE exchange started when YOU called me out(!!) when YOU brought me into your exchange with CM! I commented on the issue of CM's post about your knowledge ONLY because YOU asked me to! If you wanted me to stay "out of the fray," why did you invite me into it?
Then YOU accused me of having a "double standard." I responded with a short post distinguishing between the definition of the words "knowledge" and "intellect."
Three posts later, we're here.
This dispute has VERY specific, limited roots, roots YOU planted by requesting my feedback.
And thanks for the advice about getting over myself. I'm doing Google searches right now. So far, everything I've found relates to yoga. I'll keep you posted.
-
Good grief. Unblocking a couple people reveals massive quantity. What do they say—“what he lacks in quality he makes up for with quantity.” Something like that.
When a person passive or aggressive is in fact dead wrong, derides or attack’s others there is SOME cause. It could be
- stupidity (that is an unfortunate but plausible cause), or
- ignorance or
- foolishness or
- lying or
- human error or
- mental health issues or
- pure unadulterated intentional evil.
One of those is likely the cause. When a person is nearly always a wrong about everything and flaunts it—what do you call that? At some point it clearly isn’t about intellect but possibly about character. We can pretend it isn’t so but then we ADD to foolishness. Or something even more sinister.Post edited by GaoLu on -
@GaoLu said:
One of those is likely the cause. When a person is nearly always a wrong about everything and flaunts it—what do you call that? At some point it clearly isn’t about intellect but possibly about character. We can pretend it isn’t so but then we ADD to foolishness. Or something even more sinister.
It sounds like someone unlike you. For some people, this could be unnerving. Seek to understand. There is no need for flight or fight. CM
-
What do you mean?
-
How readeth thou? CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
We disagree about what his post did or did not do. I gave three options of what it was, you still ignore that.
Your three options - that CM's post was "idiotic, trolling, or a personal attack" - have nothing do with whether criticism of your "intellect" is the same as criticism of your "knowledge." By definition, it is not.
We disagree.
We "disagree" as to whether "intellect" is or is not the same as "knowledge"? That's not a matter of opinion, reformed; it's a matter of definition. You and I don't get to define words.
No that isn't a solution. You routinely ignore that ideal. I know you think you don't but you do.
Don't accuse me, reformed. Quote me (my posts). That should be an easy task since, so you claim, I "routinely ignore that ideal." Though we should note that the last time you claimed I regularly/routinely posted in a certain manner - suggesting in THIS POST that I "bully all the time" - your response to my request produced a single example, one which, when I challenged it, morphed into a simpler, much smaller accusation (that I had called Gao Lu a name).
And you are not the grand moderator or arbiter of rules and it is really quite annoying that you seem to think you are. Why not just stick to the issues if that's your passion? Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose.
Among my passions as a CD poster is compliance with the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." It's always going to be "annoying" to me when CD posters question each other's intelligence or call each other "idiots" or "pigs." I'm always going to want to respond to such overt violations of the CD expectation. That you request that I (and others, I assume) allow you and other posters to engage each other without interruption in what you call "uncivilized ways" sounds to me like your endorsement of uncivil posting behavior. I find that to be a startling, albeit candid, confession on your part. But NO, I will not enable uncivil behavior in these forums via my silence.
You are not our mother or even our Father and quite frankly you are self-righteous, and holier than thou when it comes to conduct on these forums even if it is hypocritical.
Don't accuse me, reformed. Quote me.
Yet here you are posting about me. You aren't criticizing ideas. You are criticizing my behavhior that you don't think follows with the CD expectation. Get over yourself Bill.
Again your post suggests that you get it! I DO criticize behavior, but I DON'T criticize people.
And remember, this ENTIRE exchange started when YOU called me out(!!) when YOU brought me into your exchange with CM! I commented on the issue of CM's post about your knowledge ONLY because YOU asked me to! If you wanted me to stay "out of the fray," why did you invite me into it?
Then YOU accused me of having a "double standard." I responded with a short post distinguishing between the definition of the words "knowledge" and "intellect."
Three posts later, we're here.
This dispute has VERY specific, limited roots, roots YOU planted by requesting my feedback.
And thanks for the advice about getting over myself. I'm doing Google searches right now. So far, everything I've found relates to yoga. I'll keep you posted.
You want to play this game? You want to follow the expectations? Then how about doing that yourself. You routinely ignore the expectation. In this very post you ignore the expectation and say that you must ingore the expectation. Here is the actual expectation:
If You See a Problem, Flag It
It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.So quit trying to play moderator and just flag it like the expectations say.
-
@C_M_ said:
How readeth thou? CMYou don't make sense, but you seem satisfied with that--again. I gave you a chance but you weaseled out.
If I was flagging posts and running to mama about every post I didn't like I would flag 98% of your posts for breaking the "rules" you complain about others breaking--when they are actually confronting you for breaking those very same rules. Somehow, I suspect you completely intentional about that and have a great time doing it. Knock off the junk and we can all have a beneficial forum.
-
@reformed said:
You want to play this game? You want to follow the expectations? Then how about doing that yourself. You routinely ignore the expectation. In this very post you ignore the expectation and say that you must ingore the expectation. Here is the actual expectation:In a previous post, and now also in this latest post, you accuse me of "routinely" violating/ignoring the expectation that we will criticize ideas, not people. In response to your last post, I asked you not to accuse me, but to quote me. If I violate the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation as "routinely" as you contend, examples of my violations should be plentiful. But in response to my request, you chose not to quote me, but instead to rephrase your accusation. That means I must once again ask: Don't accuse me. Quote me.
You call this a "game." It's not a game. Your allegation is false. The ONLY way I know to hold you accountable for the false allegations you make in these public threads is to ask you publicly to back them up. Then, when as has happened this time, you're not able to back them up because they're false, other CD residents will have the information they need to assess your the character of your allegations.
If You See a Problem, Flag It
It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.So quit trying to play moderator and just flag it like the expectations say.
Your response here completely and conveniently fails to mention the fact I pointed out in my previous post: I entered this current exchange with you BECAUSE YOU INVITED ME!!! I am amazed that I have to quote back to you YOUR words from THIS POST:
"Ad Hominem @Bill_Coley correct? Are you going to call this one out?"
YOU invited me into this thread, reformed. YOU DID! I didn't go hunting for miscreant posts. I found your post because YOU intentionally put an ampersand in front of my user name so that I would get a notification. YOU did that. YOU asked for my input, and when you disagreed with my input, YOU chose to engage me in dialogue, adding four posts to what, with this post of mine, will become an eight post exchange after my initial response to your request for my input.
YOU did that. You could have flagged my posts in keeping with the "If You See a Problem, Flag It" expectation that you've raised in your latest post, but you didn't. You continued to engage me in dialogue via four additional posts. YOU did that, reformed.
If you didn't believe I should comment on your exchange with CM, you shouldn't have asked for my input about it... but you did.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You want to play this game? You want to follow the expectations? Then how about doing that yourself. You routinely ignore the expectation. In this very post you ignore the expectation and say that you must ingore the expectation. Here is the actual expectation:In a previous post, and now also in this latest post, you accuse me of "routinely" violating/ignoring the expectation that we will criticize ideas, not people. In response to your last post, I asked you not to accuse me, but to quote me. If I violate the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation as "routinely" as you contend, examples of my violations should be plentiful. But in response to my request, you chose not to quote me, but instead to rephrase your accusation. That means I must once again ask: Don't accuse me. Quote me.
You call this a "game." It's not a game. Your allegation is false. The ONLY way I know to hold you accountable for the false allegations you make in these public threads is to ask you publicly to back them up. Then, when as has happened this time, you're not able to back them up because they're false, other CD residents will have the information they need to assess your the character of your allegations.
If You See a Problem, Flag It
It’s everyone’s job to make this forum a healthy, happy place for discourse. When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. A reply consumes energy and draws more attention to the offending post. Just flag it. When enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by a moderator.So quit trying to play moderator and just flag it like the expectations say.
Your response here completely and conveniently fails to mention the fact I pointed out in my previous post: I entered this current exchange with you BECAUSE YOU INVITED ME!!! I am amazed that I have to quote back to you YOUR words from THIS POST:
"Ad Hominem @Bill_Coley correct? Are you going to call this one out?"
YOU invited me into this thread, reformed. YOU DID! I didn't go hunting for miscreant posts. I found your post because YOU intentionally put an ampersand in front of my user name so that I would get a notification. YOU did that. YOU asked for my input, and when you disagreed with my input, YOU chose to engage me in dialogue, adding four posts to what, with this post of mine, will become an eight post exchange after my initial response to your request for my input.
YOU did that. You could have flagged my posts in keeping with the "If You See a Problem, Flag It" expectation that you've raised in your latest post, but you didn't. You continued to engage me in dialogue via four additional posts. YOU did that, reformed.
If you didn't believe I should comment on your exchange with CM, you shouldn't have asked for my input about it... but you did.
Oh Bill. You are so ridiculous. I am pointing out that YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE EXPECTATIONS YOU HEARALD.
-
@reformed said:
Oh Bill. You are so ridiculous. I am pointing out that YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE EXPECTATIONS YOU HEARALD.AND YET AGAIN you accuse, but you don't prove... because you can't prove... because your accusation is false.
Remember that your original claim was that "routinely ignore" the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation. Here is your response to my proposing "criticize ideas, not people" as a solution to the issues we were discussing (from THIS POST): (emphasis added)
"No that isn't a solution. You routinely ignore that ideal. I know you think you don't but you do. And you are not the grand moderator or arbiter of rules and it is really quite annoying that you seem to think you are. Why not just stick to the issues if that's your passion? Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose. You are not our mother or even our Father and quite frankly you are self-righteous, and holier than thou when it comes to conduct on these forums even if it is hypocritical."
And notice how you reacted to the prospect of a serious implementation of the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation: "Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose." Your preference is that you and the rest of us have the freedom to post in "uncivilized ways" if we want to. That sure sounds like a rejection of the whole premise of the expectation.
Do I "routinely ignore" the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation, as you say I do? No. Your accusation is false. But in our current exchange I've twice invited you to prove me wrong, to quote from what surely must be the several of my posts which reflect what you call my "routine" violations of the expectation. You haven't done so... because you can't do so... because your accusation is false. If it were true, you and I both know you would have quoted my posts back to me by now, and enjoyed the devilish fun of every link you included in your proof. But you've provided no proof... because your accusation is false.
But what about the OTHER expectation? the "If You See a Problem, Flag It" expectation? You allege that I also "routinely ignore" that one. Proof? None... because your accusation is false. The ONLY example you can provide is this from our current exchange, and my comments about your interaction with CM. As I pointed out in my previous post, however, YOU INVITED MY COMMENTS about that interaction, then engaged me in a multiple post exchange on the subject. I don't see how you can accuse me of ignoring that expectation when YOU invited me into the conversation.
The bottom line remains, reformed, that your accusations are false. I hold open my invitation for you to prove them, not just make them, but I know you won't...because you can't... because they're false.
Should you continue to repeat, but not prove, your false accusations, reformed, I think it will be important for us to engage the issue of whether it's right/moral to knowingly make false accusations against another person.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Oh Bill. You are so ridiculous. I am pointing out that YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE EXPECTATIONS YOU HEARALD.AND YET AGAIN you accuse, but you don't prove... because you can't prove... because your accusation is false.
Remember that your original claim was that "routinely ignore" the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation. Here is your response to my proposing "criticize ideas, not people" as a solution to the issues we were discussing (from THIS POST): (emphasis added)
"No that isn't a solution. You routinely ignore that ideal. I know you think you don't but you do. And you are not the grand moderator or arbiter of rules and it is really quite annoying that you seem to think you are. Why not just stick to the issues if that's your passion? Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose. You are not our mother or even our Father and quite frankly you are self-righteous, and holier than thou when it comes to conduct on these forums even if it is hypocritical."
And notice how you reacted to the prospect of a serious implementation of the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation: "Get out of the fray. Let the rest of us duke it out in the uncivilized ways that we choose." Your preference is that you and the rest of us have the freedom to post in "uncivilized ways" if we want to. That sure sounds like a rejection of the whole premise of the expectation.
Do I "routinely ignore" the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation, as you say I do? No. Your accusation is false. But in our current exchange I've twice invited you to prove me wrong, to quote from what surely must be the several of my posts which reflect what you call my "routine" violations of the expectation. You haven't done so... because you can't do so... because your accusation is false. If it were true, you and I both know you would have quoted my posts back to me by now, and enjoyed the devilish fun of every link you included in your proof. But you've provided no proof... because your accusation is false.
But what about the OTHER expectation? the "If You See a Problem, Flag It" expectation? You allege that I also "routinely ignore" that one. Proof? None... because your accusation is false. The ONLY example you can provide is this from our current exchange, and my comments about your interaction with CM. As I pointed out in my previous post, however, YOU INVITED MY COMMENTS about that interaction, then engaged me in a multiple post exchange on the subject. I don't see how you can accuse me of ignoring that expectation when YOU invited me into the conversation.
The bottom line remains, reformed, that your accusations are false. I hold open my invitation for you to prove them, not just make them, but I know you won't...because you can't... because they're false.
Should you continue to repeat, but not prove, your false accusations, reformed, I think it will be important for us to engage the issue of whether it's right/moral to knowingly make false accusations against another person.
Bill this whole thread is proof. You ignore the expectations by engaging what you call violations of expectations instead of flagging them. Then you personally attack us for violating said expectations. That's not attacking an idea, that is criticizing the person for violating the expectation. So get off of your high horse.
I've shown this dozens of times. I don't need to quote anything, it's all over the place.
-
@reformed said:
Bill this whole thread is proof. You ignore the expectations by engaging what you call violations of expectations instead of flagging them. Then you personally attack us for violating said expectations. That's not attacking an idea, that is criticizing the person for violating the expectation. So get off of your high horse.AND YET AGAIN you accuse, but you don't quote.... because you can't quote... because your accusations are false.
There are no horses, high or otherwise, involved here, reformed. What's involved are false accusations.
As for this thread, three times I have pointed out to you that YOU invited my comments on your exchange with CM. Your response to that fact? None - as in, all three times you chose to ignore it, to refuse to respond to it, to refuse even to mention it. Why would you refuse three consecutive opportunities even to mention a central point in my response to your accusations? Was it simply oversight? No. Not three consecutive times. Whatever the explanation, it's been an intentional act.
In my view, you chose to ignore the fact that you invited me into the thread because if you acknowledge it, your accusation is instantly proven false. So as long as you ignore the fact that you invited me into the thread, you can maintain the (false) facade that this thread proves your point.
I've shown this dozens of times. I don't need to quote anything, it's all over the place.
- "Bill, you bully all the time!" --- Proof? "Well, you bully all the time!" --- Proof? "Well, you bully all the...."
- "Bill, you routinely ignore 'criticize ideas, not people'!" --- Proof? "Well, you routinely ignore 'criticize ideas, not people'!" --- Proof? "I don't need to quote anything. It's all over the place."
What's the ONE THING that's missing from your responses to my requests for proof? Proof.
In more than one post, you've asked other posters for "proof" of their contentions - for example in THIS POST, THIS POST, and THIS POST. Would you have considered it to have been "proof" of their claims had the posters to whom you made that request simply repeated their claims, or told you that the proof was "all over the place"? Or in your view, is "proof" something more rigorous and specific than that?
Your failure/inability to quote a single one of my posts as proof of the truth of your accusations, reformed, is all the "proof" I need to demonstrate that your accusations are in fact false.
Please stop making false accusations against me.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Bill this whole thread is proof. You ignore the expectations by engaging what you call violations of expectations instead of flagging them. Then you personally attack us for violating said expectations. That's not attacking an idea, that is criticizing the person for violating the expectation. So get off of your high horse.AND YET AGAIN you accuse, but you don't quote.... because you can't quote... because your accusations are false.
The very post I quoted, that you just quoted, was proof Bill.
There are no horses, high or otherwise, involved here, reformed. What's involved are false accusations.
Yeah, yours that I am making false accusations.
As for this thread, three times I have pointed out to you that YOU invited my comments on your exchange with CM. Your response to that fact? None - as in, all three times you chose to ignore it, to refuse to respond to it, to refuse even to mention it. Why would you refuse three consecutive opportunities even to mention a central point in my response to your accusations? Was it simply oversight? No. Not three consecutive times. Whatever the explanation, it's been an intentional act.
You don't have to honor my request now do you? If you are so high on the expectations why don't you take the high road and follow them? Just flag the posts? Or is the real reason you only harp the expectations when it is to your benefit? I haven't ignored anything.
In my view, you chose to ignore the fact that you invited me into the thread because if you acknowledge it, your accusation is instantly proven false. So as long as you ignore the fact that you invited me into the thread, you can maintain the (false) facade that this thread proves your point.
It isn't proven false at all. In fact, the post I am quoting now is FURTHER evidence. You are not going after my ideas, you are criticizing me and my handling of the situation. You criticize the way I do business, the way I behave. You are further breaking the expectation you hold so dear.
I've shown this dozens of times. I don't need to quote anything, it's all over the place.
- "Bill, you bully all the time!" --- Proof? "Well, you bully all the time!" --- Proof? "Well, you bully all the...."
- "Bill, you routinely ignore 'criticize ideas, not people'!" --- Proof? "Well, you routinely ignore 'criticize ideas, not people'!" --- Proof? "I don't need to quote anything. It's all over the place."
What's the ONE THING that's missing from your responses to my requests for proof? Proof.
This whole thread.
In more than one post, you've asked other posters for "proof" of their contentions - for example in THIS POST, THIS POST, and THIS POST. Would you have considered it to have been "proof" of their claims had the posters to whom you made that request simply repeated their claims, or told you that the proof was "all over the place"? Or in your view, is "proof" something more rigorous and specific than that?
Your failure/inability to quote a single one of my posts as proof of the truth of your accusations, reformed, is all the "proof" I need to demonstrate that your accusations are in fact false.
I've given quotes.
Please stop making false accusations against me.
I haven't made one yet. Thanks for further proving my point. Why don't you follow the expectations?
-
Why are we not addressing the expectations of the OP?
A thought: Is it possible to have one big gripe thread to log all these concern against one another? Is it fair to stop the discussion for personal matters? PM or a Gripe page for all the-- complain, grumble, grouse, protest, whine, bleat; complaint, grumble, grouse, grievance, objection, etc.
Let the discussion roll on. I'm sure Jan and others would agree. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Why are we not addressing the expectations of the OP?A thought: Is it possible to have one big gripe thread to log all these concern against one another? Is it fair to stop the discussion for personal matters? PM or a Gripe page for all the-- complain, grumble, grouse, protest, whine, bleat; complaint, grumble, grouse, grievance, objection, etc.
Let the discussion roll on. I'm sure Jan and others would agree. CM
Agreed. The OP is bogus as I have already shown.
-
You don't have to announce it, move to on to one that suits you. Action speaks louder than your words. Start a gripe thread. So we can move on.
-
@C_M_ said:
You don't have to announce it, move to on to one that suits you. Action speaks louder than your words. Start a gripe thread. So we can move on.Um, I was saying I already have shown the OP has no basis in fact or reality or how things work.
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
GOP-hired prosecutor questions credibility of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who was hired by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford during the committee's hearing into allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, questioned the credibility of her accusations and called the case "weak" in her assessment of Ford's allegations.
In a memo to Senate Republicans, Mitchell details nine main points she says raise questions about the credibility of Ford's account. She concludes no prosecutor would bring the case, nor is the evidence sufficient to prevail even in a civil trial.
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," wrote Mitchell.
Mitchell cited Ford's inability to pinpoint when the alleged assault took place, her struggle to clearly identify Kavanaugh as her assailant by name, lack of key details like how she got to the party or where the party took place and inconsistencies in her account of the encounter as areas of concern in her allegations.
Mitchell's report says that Democrats and Ford's own attorneys were "likely affected Dr. Ford's account."
Memorandum prosecutor Rachel Mitchell
The prosecutor largely stuck to procedure during Thursday's day-long hearing, probing Ford on specifics of a polygraph test she took as well as relationships with people involved in her allegations.
She also asked Ford about how she had arrived at the hearing. Ford, who lives in California, had previously expressed fear of flying, although she acknowledged she took a plane in this instance and also has flown on vacations. Mitchell's report cited this portion of the hearing as questionable, saying it was not clear that her attorneys ever responded to Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's offer to send investigators to meet her in California to conduct her interview.
Mitchell, a career prosecutor with decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes, currently heads the Special Victims Division, which covers sex crimes and family violence, at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix.
© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
See the full report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RnbRO7nh-fw3Qac2itL4XzROFcf6DUei/view
This report is one-sided. It's unfair and shameful. Rachel Mitchell is the Arizona prosecutor for hire. She's a disgrace to the profession. Republicans are so desperate to seat Kavanaugh they paid for a bogus report on the taxpayer expenses. Read the full report for yourself. You will see why it is unacceptable by anyone's standard:
- She asked closed questions to Ms. Ford (tried to lock her in--discredit her story).
She also asked open-ended questions. Why so dishonest?
- She didn't talk with the woman first.
What does that have to do with anything? She wasn't afforded the opportunity. Remember it was Ford and her attorneys that balked all the way.
- She did no investigation.
Relevance? What should she have investigated?
- She didn't wait on the FBI findings (not concluded).
There was no FBI investigation to wait on.
- She didn't mention Kavanaugh's name in the report.
The report wasn't about him.
- She made no mention of Kavanaugh emotional out of control behavior, belligerence, and rant.
Irrelevant.
- She used criminal standards (explain her conclusion-worse than "he said/he said") instead of a fact-finding method for the setting as required.
Yes, criminal standards. To see whether the testimony was credible. It wasn't.
- At best, Ms. Mitchell's report is premature. At worst, the report is not worth the paper it is written on.
Actually it is completely accurate. So many holes in Ford's story. So many inconsistincies which I noted during the hearing.
- The report is written to Republicans and not to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
They are the ones that hired her....
These are just some of the short-coming of this report. Rachel Mitchell dirty herself and the underhanded Republicans what they wanted. She has prostituted the process and misrepresented the law of fairness, investigation, and justice. Ms. Mitchell is a disgrace to women, in general, and an enemy of survival rape victims. CM
Clearly you don't know how things work.
If anything, her major fault was that she did not go harder after Ford.
-
@reformed said: Um, I was saying I already have shown the OP has no basis in fact or reality or how things work.
Reformed, accept what you have denied:
"...Rachel Mitchell dirty herself and the underhanded Republicans what they wanted. She has prostituted the process and misrepresented the law of fairness, investigation, and justice. Ms. Mitchell is a disgrace to women, in general, and an enemy of survival rape victims. CM
Like it or not:
@C_M_ said: You don't have to announce it, move to on to one that suits you. Action speaks louder than your words. Start a gripe thread. So we can move on.CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said: Um, I was saying I already have shown the OP has no basis in fact or reality or how things work.
Reformed, accept what you have denied:
"...Rachel Mitchell dirty herself and the underhanded Republicans what they wanted. She has prostituted the process and misrepresented the law of fairness, investigation, and justice. Ms. Mitchell is a disgrace to women, in general, and an enemy of survival rape victims. CM
Like it or not:
@C_M_ said: You don't have to announce it, move to on to one that suits you. Action speaks louder than your words. Start a gripe thread. So we can move on.CM
Her report was accurate and spot on.
