You're not correct about why I'm here, or who I am, or how I envision the characters in "The Handmaid's Tale." While I suppose you could make a case that : "ETA (estimated time of arrival?) LOL," my oversimplification of what a prosector does is a bit heavy-handed, my point was that her job here is very similar to her "normal job" in that she is tasked with exposing holes in a defendant's story, in order to make a convincing argument for her case. Just because she generally does this for people who are one type of victim (victims of sexual assault in this case,) doesn't mean that she can't do the same thing for other types of victims. As for Aunt Lydia, you're referencing the TV show, which I couldn't sit through, but is my indication that the individuals who currently enjoy the joke are indeed feminists. (Well, that and the fact that the joke is only funny if you believe that Kavanaugh is automatically guilty and Ford's testimony was credible despite the lack of any evidence - that seems pretty feminist to me.) The televised version of Margaret Attwood's book is like proto feminist martyrdom porn. Maybe you picture a certain actress when you make fun of Rachel Mitchell, and maybe you could successfully swtich those actresses and still think the joke is funny. (I'll guess I'll ignore that you could actually call Mitchell "Serena Joy" if her looks weren't relevant to the joke, since both characters are tools of the patriarchal society in the book.) However, usage of the literary trope - while a dig at her appearance and countenance - encompasses more than a snarky comment on her looks (as I pointed out.) It also removes her agency to disagree with Dr. Ford's narrative, or the article's above, and to still be her own woman. This is why I am replying here, and pointing out this hypocrisy. We aren't all bots, as someone stated above. I would never conflate being a woman with being a feminist, and if you happen to not be one, then I apologize for mischaracterizing you.
I don't deny or refute any of the Trump quotes you cite, and neither do I approve of them. You aren't really making a point that is relevant to what I was saying about Rachel Mitchell, considering that I am neither a Trump voter or supporter. I don't have to be to disagree with you that there are "men found to be attacking women," in the case of Christine Blasey-Ford. I guess it's difficult to see people as more complex than that in today's political climate, but there you have it. I am a woman, who is not a Trump voter, who does not believe Dr. Ford's claims about Brett Kavanaugh, and who will not unless the evidence bears differently. I don't really think that throwing Trump's quotes about women excuses the snarky Aunt Lydia comment about Rachel Mitchell - it's hardly her fault he talks like that.
I'm completely focused. You said "corroboration". I pointed out it isn't needed. A "discrepancy" that he wouldn't allow in a case in front of him on the District Court bench under any circumstance. A discrepancy would be the mis-identification of whether he had 8 or 15 beers, not whether he INSISTED he didn't drink beer with his boys on weekdays. If you can present the details of her "perjury" I'm all ears.
Possibly? Obviously I can only speculate, not speak for her, but it's not a far-fetched scenario. Or maybe she has insufficient self-awareness to know how appalling this looks?
In any case, Mitchell might have horrified fellow members of her profession but she's made some good friends on the Senate Committee through this, so she'll be all right. Not sure why this whole saga reminds me of this, but I had the misfortune of working with a prosecutor about 10 years ago who was not only a zealot and willing to do anything for a conviction (to the point of doing some very shifty things in some cases) but bullied women who were her subordinates and was generally rude and unprofessional to anyone who wasn't part of her little club - including me, to the point that I flatly refused to work with her on any of my cases - and demonstrated a staggering lack of understanding of the law in a number of areas. But she was good on her feet, so gave the impression of brilliance. She went on to be elevated to the highest prosecutorial position in another part of the country (where she was originally from, and where she learned her tactics - it's one of those places that other jurisdictions look at and go, "they did what?") so none of her obvious shortcomings proved an obstacle to power.
Yep. The stats make it more likely than not that she has been at least on the receiving end of unwelcome sexualised attention, if not outright sexual assault. Rachel Mitchell probably has too. But they subscribe to the attitude that women need to just harden the fuck up because that's how men are and always will be. They don't want to be a threat to powerful men.
About 30 years ago, there was massive coverage in Melbourne of a scandal where a Master at a Melbourne Uni residential college was alleged to have sexually assaulted two students at a college function. They promptly disclosed and reported it. The response, including from some high profile purported feminists, was "why did they go to the cops?" "Why didn't they slap him and just get on with their night?" "Pfft, storm in a tea cup, that's just life, we've all been on the receiving end of a boob or bum grab, no need to Ruin A Man's Career™". (He was convicted at first instance and it was overturned on appeal.) Even my usually progressive and empathetic stepmother dismissed the evidence (from the daughter of one of my Mum's friends no less) of one complainant's immediate distress, which is admissible as a form of indirect corroboration, as "well, she could still just be a hysterical girl" and "our friends know Professor Alleged Perpetrator and his wife and they say they can't believe he'd do that". In fairness to her, I doubt she would say the same now, especially knowing what she does about the work I do with victims. I remember being incoherent with rage and disbelief, but didn't have the knowledge and ability I do now to argue the point - I think I was still in high school. (And although it didn't consciously enter my head, it reinforced that maybe it was best not to disclose some fragmented memories of being touched up as a kid at primary school and an incident with a creepy teacher in year nine. So I didn't, until about 10 years later.)
I agree that it neither confirms or denies it. My original point somewhere in this mess is that her accusations have not been corroborated. There is no corroboration to ignore. I don't believe I ever claimed the other party-goers asserted in her accusation was explicitly false. If I did I will relinquish the point.
Ah, got it. Unfortunately sarcasm font looks the same as normal font a lot of the time, sorry!
And I completely agree with you. It's unprofessional. A "reasonable prosecutor" to use her words, would not have engaged in this exercise, where she was expected to come to the conclusion they wanted. Even her own former colleagues are reading it and saying words to the effect of, "WTF?"
Do I even need to? It's obvious that it's what she was paid to do and the conclusion she was expected to reach. But as an officer of the court she should be ashamed of herself.
I'm not saying it does, at all. Whether person X believes person Y is neither here nor there when evaluating person Y's evidence. In a criminal trial, their belief or otherwise is usually irrelevant, what matters is what the tribunal of fact finds happened (or not). It's "intractably neutral" - it neither confirms nor undermines the allegation. As I read the post, the point of raising it is not to say that the friend's belief is somehow corroborative of the event itself (although of course if the friend had said, "I don't remember it and I DON'T believe it occurred" you can bet that would have made its way into the memo as another reason not to accept the allegation as true) but to illustrate that how other potential witnesses' statements have been interpreted is at best a misunderstanding and possibly disingenuous. A lack of memory of attending an event is not the same as saying it did not occur, yet the two concepts appear to have been conflated.
Well, since the Senate isn't a court of law, but a Senate hearing to determine Kavanaugh's fitness as a justice, the "collaboration" of the accusation isn't actually that pertinent, but if it were: none of the people who were asked had a statement taken under oath, nor were they invited to testify, so their statements cannot be taken as evidence in the legal sense. Dr. Ford's statement, however, *is* evidence in the legal sense, because her testimony was given under oath. Testimony is used to convict people all the time.
You just keep moving the goalposts here. You know that, right?
Also too: Wray and Rosenstein are good friends with Kavanaugh.
Okay, Cov. I'm not the enemy. Just giving my opinion. That's allowed.
I have. It's called "The Handmaid's Tale." You should try it. Hulu really didn't do it justice. I am not a bot, just a person who disagrees with you.
You're not correct about why I'm here, or who I am, or how I envision the characters in "The Handmaid's Tale." While I suppose you could make a case that : "ETA (estimated time of arrival?) LOL," my oversimplification of what a prosector does is a bit heavy-handed, my point was that her job here is very similar to her "normal job" in that she is tasked with exposing holes in a defendant's story, in order to make a convincing argument for her case. Just because she generally does this for people who are one type of victim (victims of sexual assault in this case,) doesn't mean that she can't do the same thing for other types of victims. As for Aunt Lydia, you're referencing the TV show, which I couldn't sit through, but is my indication that the individuals who currently enjoy the joke are indeed feminists. (Well, that and the fact that the joke is only funny if you believe that Kavanaugh is automatically guilty and Ford's testimony was credible despite the lack of any evidence - that seems pretty feminist to me.) The televised version of Margaret Attwood's book is like proto feminist martyrdom porn. Maybe you picture a certain actress when you make fun of Rachel Mitchell, and maybe you could successfully swtich those actresses and still think the joke is funny. (I'll guess I'll ignore that you could actually call Mitchell "Serena Joy" if her looks weren't relevant to the joke, since both characters are tools of the patriarchal society in the book.) However, usage of the literary trope - while a dig at her appearance and countenance - encompasses more than a snarky comment on her looks (as I pointed out.) It also removes her agency to disagree with Dr. Ford's narrative, or the article's above, and to still be her own woman. This is why I am replying here, and pointing out this hypocrisy. We aren't all bots, as someone stated above. I would never conflate being a woman with being a feminist, and if you happen to not be one, then I apologize for mischaracterizing you.
"And though she be but little, she is fierce."
I don't deny or refute any of the Trump quotes you cite, and neither do I approve of them. You aren't really making a point that is relevant to what I was saying about Rachel Mitchell, considering that I am neither a Trump voter or supporter. I don't have to be to disagree with you that there are "men found to be attacking women," in the case of Christine Blasey-Ford. I guess it's difficult to see people as more complex than that in today's political climate, but there you have it. I am a woman, who is not a Trump voter, who does not believe Dr. Ford's claims about Brett Kavanaugh, and who will not unless the evidence bears differently. I don't really think that throwing Trump's quotes about women excuses the snarky Aunt Lydia comment about Rachel Mitchell - it's hardly her fault he talks like that.
I'm completely focused. You said "corroboration". I pointed out it isn't needed. A "discrepancy" that he wouldn't allow in a case in front of him on the District Court bench under any circumstance. A discrepancy would be the mis-identification of whether he had 8 or 15 beers, not whether he INSISTED he didn't drink beer with his boys on weekdays. If you can present the details of her "perjury" I'm all ears.
Possibly? Obviously I can only speculate, not speak for her, but it's not a far-fetched scenario. Or maybe she has insufficient self-awareness to know how appalling this looks?
In any case, Mitchell might have horrified fellow members of her profession but she's made some good friends on the Senate Committee through this, so she'll be all right. Not sure why this whole saga reminds me of this, but I had the misfortune of working with a prosecutor about 10 years ago who was not only a zealot and willing to do anything for a conviction (to the point of doing some very shifty things in some cases) but bullied women who were her subordinates and was generally rude and unprofessional to anyone who wasn't part of her little club - including me, to the point that I flatly refused to work with her on any of my cases - and demonstrated a staggering lack of understanding of the law in a number of areas. But she was good on her feet, so gave the impression of brilliance. She went on to be elevated to the highest prosecutorial position in another part of the country (where she was originally from, and where she learned her tactics - it's one of those places that other jurisdictions look at and go, "they did what?") so none of her obvious shortcomings proved an obstacle to power.
Yep. The stats make it more likely than not that she has been at least on the receiving end of unwelcome sexualised attention, if not outright sexual assault. Rachel Mitchell probably has too. But they subscribe to the attitude that women need to just harden the fuck up because that's how men are and always will be. They don't want to be a threat to powerful men.
About 30 years ago, there was massive coverage in Melbourne of a scandal where a Master at a Melbourne Uni residential college was alleged to have sexually assaulted two students at a college function. They promptly disclosed and reported it. The response, including from some high profile purported feminists, was "why did they go to the cops?" "Why didn't they slap him and just get on with their night?" "Pfft, storm in a tea cup, that's just life, we've all been on the receiving end of a boob or bum grab, no need to Ruin A Man's Career™". (He was convicted at first instance and it was overturned on appeal.) Even my usually progressive and empathetic stepmother dismissed the evidence (from the daughter of one of my Mum's friends no less) of one complainant's immediate distress, which is admissible as a form of indirect corroboration, as "well, she could still just be a hysterical girl" and "our friends know Professor Alleged Perpetrator and his wife and they say they can't believe he'd do that". In fairness to her, I doubt she would say the same now, especially knowing what she does about the work I do with victims. I remember being incoherent with rage and disbelief, but didn't have the knowledge and ability I do now to argue the point - I think I was still in high school. (And although it didn't consciously enter my head, it reinforced that maybe it was best not to disclose some fragmented memories of being touched up as a kid at primary school and an incident with a creepy teacher in year nine. So I didn't, until about 10 years later.)
I agree that it neither confirms or denies it. My original point somewhere in this mess is that her accusations have not been corroborated. There is no corroboration to ignore. I don't believe I ever claimed the other party-goers asserted in her accusation was explicitly false. If I did I will relinquish the point.
Ah, got it. Unfortunately sarcasm font looks the same as normal font a lot of the time, sorry!
And I completely agree with you. It's unprofessional. A "reasonable prosecutor" to use her words, would not have engaged in this exercise, where she was expected to come to the conclusion they wanted. Even her own former colleagues are reading it and saying words to the effect of, "WTF?"
Do I even need to? It's obvious that it's what she was paid to do and the conclusion she was expected to reach. But as an officer of the court she should be ashamed of herself.
I'm not saying it does, at all. Whether person X believes person Y is neither here nor there when evaluating person Y's evidence. In a criminal trial, their belief or otherwise is usually irrelevant, what matters is what the tribunal of fact finds happened (or not). It's "intractably neutral" - it neither confirms nor undermines the allegation. As I read the post, the point of raising it is not to say that the friend's belief is somehow corroborative of the event itself (although of course if the friend had said, "I don't remember it and I DON'T believe it occurred" you can bet that would have made its way into the memo as another reason not to accept the allegation as true) but to illustrate that how other potential witnesses' statements have been interpreted is at best a misunderstanding and possibly disingenuous. A lack of memory of attending an event is not the same as saying it did not occur, yet the two concepts appear to have been conflated.
Nope - the general allegation is unfitness for the office he was nominated for.
So you just thought you'd chuck that little allegation out there before you knew whether it was supported, eh? Ah, well. Apology accepted.
Well, since the Senate isn't a court of law, but a Senate hearing to determine Kavanaugh's fitness as a justice, the "collaboration" of the accusation isn't actually that pertinent, but if it were: none of the people who were asked had a statement taken under oath, nor were they invited to testify, so their statements cannot be taken as evidence in the legal sense. Dr. Ford's statement, however, *is* evidence in the legal sense, because her testimony was given under oath. Testimony is used to convict people all the time.
You just keep moving the goalposts here. You know that, right?