Trump's apology to Kavanaugh

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have been trying to get an answer to this question in other threads, but haven't got one yet. So I've decided to give the question a thread of its own.

Yesterday, the President of the United States made the claim, in an apology to now-Justice Kavanaugh, that he was the victim of a "campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception." Now, only one person made testimony against then-Judge Kavanaugh under oath, and that was Professor Ford. Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, then was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

 

[Revoltingest]

I have been trying to get an answer to this question in other threads, but haven't got one yet. So I've decided to give the question a thread of its own.

Yesterday, the President of the United States made the claim, in an apology to now-Justice Kavanaugh, that he was the victim of a "campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception." Now, only one person made testimony against then-Judge Kavanaugh under oath, and that was Professor Ford. Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, then was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

What's the question?

Edit:
I was thrown by the question mark inside the quotation marks.
Trump might believe what you said, but the quoted text doesn't say precisely that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What's the question?

Edit:
I was thrown by the question mark inside the quotation marks.

Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

Answer is in post #2 edit of an edit of an edit.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Answer is in post #2 edit of an edit of an edit.

Yes, I noted that after I posted, answering only your first point.

But I think that, in fact, the apology does say precisely that.

"On behalf of the nation, I'd like to apologize to Brad and the entire a Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you've been forced to endure. Those who stepped forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation. Not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception."

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I noted that after I posted, answering only your first point.

But I think that, in fact, the apology does say precisely that.

"On behalf of the nation, I'd like to apologize to Brad and the entire a Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you've been forced to endure. Those who stepped forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation. Not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception."

There's ambiguity there.
It could be that he found Ford sincere, but that she misremembered an incident.
But whether that or not, he clearly finds those using Ford to be disingenuous.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There's ambiguity there.
It could be that he found Ford sincere, but that she misremembered an incident.
But whether that or not, he clearly finds those using Ford to be disingenuous.

My impression is that Prof. Ford would probably like all this to go away now, and while I can't say I blame her, my own temperament would likely have me looking for ways to sue for defamation. No doubt I could find a lawyer to make the case, though whether it could ever win or not is a lot less certain.

 

[Revoltingest]

My impression is that Prof. Ford would probably like all this to go away now, and while I can't say I blame her, my own temperament would likely have me looking for ways to sue for defamation. No doubt I could find a lawyer to make the case, though whether it could ever win or not is a lot less certain.

Defamation suits involving either Ford or Kavanaugh would be unproductive.
Were I either of them, I'd fade into obscurity.

 

[Nakosis]

I have been trying to get an answer to this question in other threads, but haven't got one yet. So I've decided to give the question a thread of its own.

Yesterday, the President of the United States made the claim, in an apology to now-Justice Kavanaugh, that he was the victim of a "campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception." Now, only one person made testimony against then-Judge Kavanaugh under oath, and that was Professor Ford. Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, then was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

Personally I see Professor Ford as a pawn in all of this. The Democrats manipulated her to place her where she didn't want to be. Trump said Ford was a very credible witness.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Defamation suits involving either Ford or Kavanaugh would be unproductive.
Were I either of them, I'd fade into obscurity.

Still, is this the kind of thing that you think the President of the US should be saying?

Hell, I find myself wanting to construct a J.S. Mill length sentence containing words such as "bloviating," "ignorant," "self-aggrandizing,"

Personally I see Professor Ford as a pawn in all of this. The Democrats manipulated her to place her where she didn't want to be. Trump said Ford was a very credible witness.

"Credible" means "believable," yet he obviously could not have "believed" here, since he claims that what was presented to the Senate committee was "lies and deception." Hard to see how you can have it both ways....until you remember that Trump himself seems to going for the record number of lies told by any politician in history. Somebody should call Ripley, because I think he's got a real shot at it...

 

[Revoltingest]

Still, is this the kind of thing that you think the President of the US should be saying?

We each say what calls to us.
Trump's message & style don't suit me.

Hell, I find myself wanting to construct a J.S. Mill length sentence containing words such as "bloviating," "ignorant," "self-aggrandizing,"

"Credible" means "believable," yet he obviously could not have "believed" here, since he claims that what was presented to the Senate committee was "lies and deception." Hard to see how you can have it both ways....until you remember that Trump himself seems to going for the record number of lies told by any politician in history. Somebody should call Ripley, because I think he's got a real shot at it...

Did Trump say specifically that Ford was lying & deceiving?
(That wasn't in your quote.)

 

[Nous]

My impression is that Prof. Ford would probably like all this to go away now, and while I can't say I blame her, my own temperament would likely have me looking for ways to sue for defamation. No doubt I could find a lawyer to make the case, though whether it could ever win or not is a lot less certain.

No, Ford is a "public figure" now. She would have to prove that Trump lied with actual malice, which would require her to prove that she's actually innocent of lying, and that Trump knew it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We each say what calls to us.
Trump's message & style don't suit me.

And depending on circumstance, I've always thought that we are accountable for having at least some small governance over what we say, and in what circumstances. (A former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, has just written a new book in which he refers to Trump as "unspeakable." How I wish that could sometimes be just "unspeaking.")

Did Trump say specifically that Ford was lying & deceiving?
(That wasn't in your quote.)

We could invoke lawyerly literalism to death ("that depends on what the definition of 'is' is") and that often enough helps to provide a tawdry excuse for pretending that what we all know is the truth isn't. (I trust you understood the reference.)

But what he actually said, and keeping in mind what he could have said, I think I'm on firm ground. He said "lies and deception." He could easily have said "faulty memory," but he did not. And he went on to state that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent" rather than "must be presumed innocent."

Those words all have meaning, and very clear meaning. (Although, I would have to admit that Trump is excessively unlikely to be able to see that deeply or clearly.)

 

[Revoltingest]

And depending on circumstance, I've always thought that we are accountable for having at least some small governance over what we say, and in what circumstances. (A former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, has just written a new book in which he refers to Trump as "unspeakable." How I wish that could sometimes be just "unspeaking.")

We could invoke lawyerly literalism to death ("that depends on what the definition of 'is' is") and that often enough helps to provide a tawdry excuse for pretending that what we all know is the truth isn't. (I trust you understood the reference.)

But what he actually said, and keeping in mind what he could have said, I think I'm on firm ground. He said "lies and deception." He could easily have said "faulty memory," but he did not. And he went on to state that Kavanaugh was "proven innocent" rather than "must be presumed innocent."

Those words all have meaning, and very clear meaning. (Although, I would have to admit that Trump is excessively unlikely to be able to see that deeply or clearly.)

As I said earlier, it could be read to accuse Democrats of being dishonest, rather than Ford.
This isn't mere Clintonesque "meaning of is" obfuscation.
And of course, Kavanaugh was not proven innocent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

Not necessarily. Let's give both of Kavanaugh and Ford the benefit of the doubt. Ford could honestly remember Kavanaugh attacking her when it was someone else. That has happened in the past. There are convicted rapists whose cases were overturned when DNA proved they were not the assailant. If that was the case then Ford was a tool of the Democratic party. They did keep her info on the back burner until it was "leaked" at the last moment. This case should have been made public much earlier. As it was a disservice was done to both Ford and Kavanaugh.

 

[Nous]

My impression is that Prof. Ford would probably like all this to go away now, and while I can't say I blame her, my own temperament would likely have me looking for ways to sue for defamation. No doubt I could find a lawyer to make the case, though whether it could ever win or not is a lot less certain.

The irony in your comment here is that ever since Trump ran for president he has advocated that the "public figure" standard be abandoned so that he could sue all the media outlets for pointing out his incessant lies.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

No, I don't believe he meant that. I think that he was referring to the fact that this could have been dealt with quietly several months ago, but instead was leaked days before the nomination. But then again, he might have meant to say that Ford is part of a political campaign to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation. And who knows, maybe she is. Of course I think it's highly unlikely, and not something a president should be necessarily be speculating publicly about, but one can never know.

 

[Lyndon]

there are plenty of idiots on twitter saying stupid things!!

 

[metis]

Is the President not very clearly stating that Professor Ford, then was a willing part of this "campaign of political and personal destruction," and was, in point of fact, indulging in "lies and deception?"

Basically yes, imo, but it would be politically unpopular for him to say those words directly, thus accusing a woman. The other tactic they're using is to blame Feinstein, thus the Dems.

IOW, Kabuki Theater.

 

[Anthem]

It is clear the russian propaganda machine is adjusted to claim Ford is working in conspiracy with the democrats, so yes Trump was accusing them all together.