Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: gamerfreakSo if there’s not an eyewitness to a crime, it’s impossible to investigate?
No, that’s what other physical evidence is for. Of course, investigation becomes increasingly difficult the more days weeks months years decades into the future you get.
The whole entire thing is really what Group A says vs. what Group B says, at this point. I’m not on the jury, but if there were a jury and I was on it, I could say that I don’t think anything is going to be presented that would satisfy my opinion of what constitutes proof.
Quote:I am talking about establishing a pattern of behavior. Things like this are rarely a 1-off event. If Ford’s accusation is true, is very likely other people witnessed similar behavior from Kavanaugh
I would actually be inclined to agree in a normal case, however, this is not a case at all. Secondly, I think there exists a greater incentive to lie than would be in a normal case.
It’s really not about whether or not the events actually happened, at least, not as relates the Senate. Nobody on the Senate could GAF if anything actually happened, or not, for the Democrats, it’s about hopefully taking the Senate and theoretically being able to block any nominee they want to. For the Republicans, it’s about getting someone confirmed before that can happen.
And, if it’s not about that, then it’s about virtue signaling to your likely voting base.
But, make no mistake, if the event Blasey Ford’s claims did actually happen, not one person on that Senate cares.
Quote:If you have those other people saying there was other occasions where he got sexually aggressive, that adds significant credibility to Ford’s testimony.
No, it doesn’t. Proof of him being sexually aggressive, or aggressive in any other way, would add significant credibility. If just people saying stuff matters, then I must have went to bed a month ago and woke up in a world where lying doesn’t exist.
For instance, if Blasey Ford’s claims are true, then Kavanaugh and Judge are both lying. I can accept that they might be lying. But, it wouldn’t be fair for me to accept that they might be lying only then to dismiss any possibility that anyone else is lying.
Like, “You’re the accused, so you and those who support you are the only ones who could possibly be lying.”
Doesn’t sound quite like justice to me.
Quote:It’s the job of the people conducting the investigation to make a determination of the validity of the information they receive and the background of the person they receive it from.
Most people aren’t going to lie to an FBI agent unless they have motive to do so.
Information from a crackhead is going to be less reliable than someone with a PhD.
It’s not a perfect process, but it’s about collecting as much information as possible and to make a probabilistic determination.
What is the PhD in? What does the PhD holder do for a living? It’s not impossible that I would be more likely to believe the crackhead.
As far as the first thing you said, that’s fine. If the FBI comes back and says they think it happened, no problem.
I think the only thing that would make a probabilistic determination would be proof beyond people merely saying something. We can have different standards for that, though.
I’m not going to lie. If you’re the defendant in just about any case, I’m the guy you want on the jury. If you’re the plaintiff, (or prosecution in a criminal case) you probably don’t want me on the jury, generally speaking.
Quote:That’s not what I said.
If a through investigation yields no other credible information that corroborates Ford’s story, then I am fine.
I am not sure 1 week is enough time for such an investigation.
How many weeks until Election Day? Would that number of weeks be sufficient?
Also, if you’re describing what people say as, “Credible information,” then I’m not sure where the disconnect of what I implied is. Anybody who knew Kavanuagh can make any non-specific statement they want to and nobody could ever prove that statement wrong...so what would their statements be proving right?
Disqualified.
Pick a candidate that can tell the truth and we can move on from this fiasco.
Quote: billryanFirst you wrongly stated that they denied the incident occurred, then it's well they don't say it happened so that means it didn't.
Judge certainly denied it occurred, that’s her eyewitness, is it not? That’s her eyewitness denying it occurred.
I was wrong about the Leland friend, she didn’t deny it, she just said she doesn’t remember it, but she believes Blasey Ford. Okay. So, how does her saying she believes an account of something she doesn’t remember constitute corroborating evidence?
Would she even have to have been there to believe Blasey Ford? She can believe her without being there. Not being there is also one (of a few) possible explanations for why she doesn’t remember it.
Quote:If someone goes public, you decry them for not talking to the right people. When someone says I have something I'd like to discuss it with the FBI, you say why not go public.
You say you are 99.99 percent convinced he lied. Even trump says if he lied to Congress she shouldn't get in. I'm trying to follow your logic here, but doesn't this mean you should be 99.9% against him, or does lying under oath not bother you?
Forget the he said, she said. Do you believe he lied, under oath, to Congress?
Going to Avenatti is not, “Going public.” He wants to play games to keep his name mentioned as often as possible by trickiling out his, “Information,” a little at a time and speaking in riddles. He’s probably checking Google data for how many times his name has been searched in the last 24 hours as we speak. Do you know his Twitter profile describes him as, “Fighter for good?” (Gag Choke Cough Cough Gag). How sanctimonious and pretentious! He should just put, “Marvel Superhero.”
When did I decry anyone for going public? The investigation is set for one week. If you’ve got evidence, now would be a very good time, thank you.
I believe he lied to the extent that he’s never been blackout drunk with 99.99999% confidence. That doesn’t mean I can prove that he has. I can also kind of understand why he would lie about that, as has been discussed already.
As far as the SCOTUS, I don’t want him on the SCOTUS because I think he’ll legislate from the bench and I seriously disagree with his political views. I’m actually kind of surprised to be engaged so fervently in this discussion because I’m not arguing from the position of someone who wants him on the SCOTUS.
I’m just holding him to the same standard to which I would hold someone if I agreed with him politically.
Why is that? Not everyone, including heavy binge drinkers gets black outs.Quote: Mission146
I agree with that 100%. I’m also 99.999999% confident he lied in his testimony about never being blackout drunk.
Quote: AxelWolfWhy is that? Not everyone, including heavy binge drinkers gets black outs.
If the definition people are using is not remembering all of the events of the previous night, I’ve yet to meet the person who drinks with any frequency who hasn’t been there at least once.
Quote: SteverinosMore proof today that Kavanaugh lied to Congress. He knew about the Ramirez allegation before the New Yorker story was published. He was coordinating with friends on the response to it. This is in direct conflict with what he testified to last Thursday.
Disqualified.
Pick a candidate that can tell the truth and we can move on from this fiasco.
post deleted
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThe Left is never right?
The left side is the right side and the right side is the wrong side.
That has so many meanings lol
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-sworn-statement-alleges-ford-lied-under-oath-about-prepping-someone-for-a-polygraph
The Senate Judiciary Committee received a sworn statement from someone described as a longtime boyfriend of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford stating that she coached someone on taking a polygraph examination.
Letter to Ford's lawyers from Senator Grassley
https://www.scribd.com/document/389991842/Letter-to-Ford-attorneys#from_embed
Looks like Ford lied under oath.
Quote: Mission146That’s probably fair, but I think the overall point that there’s not enough evidence so far that this would ever see a criminal trial holds...that’s if the statute of limitations weren’t already up, of course.
1. This is a job interview, not a criminal trial.
2. Mitchell did question for 3-4 Senators on Kavanaugh. Then Graham took his time back and she never spike again.
3. Before you use her (paid) opinion, ask yourself: where is her report on Kavanaugh? She was there for the entire questioning of him, and did some of it herself. Why was only her opinion on Ford released?
Quote: beachbumbabs1. This is a job interview, not a criminal trial.
2. Mitchell did question for 3-4 Senators on Kavanaugh. Then Graham took his time back and she never spike again.
3. Before you use her (paid) opinion, ask yourself: where is her report on Kavanaugh? She was there for the entire questioning of him, and did some of it herself. Why was only her opinion on Ford released?
1. It’s a discussion of what the standard should be for something like this. I think it’s fair to suggest that there’s some disagreement as to what standard should be used, and it’s far from strictly codified.
2. Ok.
3. Probably because #2. Secondly, her standpoint was looking at it as a prosecutor. Kavanaugh isn’t the one saying that something happened. Her report just says that she doesn’t think a criminal case could be brought just based on the testimony and she doesn’t think a successful civil case could be brought, either.
I’m also not using her (paid) opinion. I’ve never wavered from my position that my standard of proof that I think should be used and would use, and again this is just my quite probably fallible personal opinion, is the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t think you should be able to run around accusing people of crimes from decades in the past outside of the proper legal framework unless you have actual proof.
Quote: SteverinosMore proof today that Kavanaugh lied to Congress. He knew about the Ramirez allegation before the New Yorker story was published. He was coordinating with friends on the response to it. This is in direct conflict with what he testified to last Thursday.
Disqualified.
Once upon a time even a president was impeached for lying under oath.
And it was a lie about consensual sex
I knew someone that was a scum bag, got caught trying to rape a girl passed out in a car, before he could get started. I do regret not coming forward to testify against the guy, because he only got one year.Quote: rxwineWhy is that hard to believe? I know a couple people from high school that I've never spoken about who did some sketchy things, that if I suddenly saw them on the news up for a supreme court justice, I definitely would spill the beans on their sorry ass even if it was 50 years later as long as I know it to be true.
Quote: onenickelmiracleI knew someone that was a scum bag, got caught trying to rape a girl passed out in a car, before he could get started. I do regret not coming forward to testify against the guy, because he only got one year.
You say he got a year, I take that to mean he was convicted. How do you feel your testimony would have influenced the sentence?
I'm not sure if that's the best definition, though. I don't need alcohol to forget stuff! ;)Quote: Mission146If the definition people are using is not remembering all of the events of the previous night, I’ve yet to meet the person who drinks with any frequency who hasn’t been there at least once.
I did sometimes drink to excess in my 20's and early 30's. I have never woken up in a strange place after drinking. I have never asked myself or had a friend ask, "Dude, do you know what you did last night?" and not had an answer. But I have forgotten some of a given previous nights' events (what I would have considered unimportant details, though others may not) even without the benefit of alcohol. I'm sure this also occurred on nights where I had been drinking.
Did I have blackouts?
Quote: JoemanI'm not sure if that's the best definition, though. I don't need alcohol to forget stuff! ;)
I did sometimes drink to excess in my 20's and early 30's. I have never woken up in a strange place after drinking. I have never asked myself or had a friend ask, "Dude, do you know what you did last night?" and not had an answer. But I have forgotten some of a given previous nights' events (what I would have considered unimportant details, though others may not) even without the benefit of alcohol. I'm sure this also occurred on nights where I had been drinking.
Did I have blackouts?
I don't know. It just seems that such is the definition that Kavanaugh and a few people in this thread seem to be using.
My definition is essentially anytime you have complete gaps in memory from the previous night AND go night-night at some point without intending to do so. I mean, if you fell asleep even on a couch or something without meaning to and then had a gap in memory from prior to falling asleep, I would call that a blackout if it's alcohol induced.
I don't think you necessarily have to wake up in a strange place. A blackout can happen even at home, even when you're the only one around. I can only think of one occasion in which I woke up in a, "Strange," place, and I'd only been out about an hour, then I went to where I was supposed to be. I woke up in the hotel room at Downtown Grand the one time not knowing how I got there, but I remembered getting in the vehicle en route to Downtown Grand. I even kind of remember that I was trying not to fall asleep in the vehicle, (I did) I just don't remember going from the vehicle to my hotel room. I even talked about it in my trip report:
Quote:The combination of no sleeping and alcohol finally reared its ugly head and I fell asleep as soon as we got to the car. The last thing I remember is a nice hit for over $100 vulturing an Ultimate X machine. Apparently, according to my friends, they woke me up and Downtown Grand and I managed to get myself to my room from there.
So, I would call that a blackout, even though the only thing I don't remember is anything between waking up in the vehicle and going to bed. I also slept in my jeans, apparently, but I'd taken off my shoes and shirt. I said that the last thing I remember is hitting that machine, but I actually do remember getting into the vehicle now, I sat in back behind the passenger seat, I just didn't remember that at the time.
Also, the amount of alcohol consumed normally wouldn't have caused that...but by the point I fell asleep in the vehicle, I'd been up for over forty hours.
Quote: mcallister3200Criminals apparently, and people who take ambien are prone to blackouts. Ambien people might call it sleep walking, but they tend to do some f’d up things with no recollection moreso than the general population.
Ambien is a crazy drug.
It acts on the brain in a completely different way than what has been observed with any other class of drug, and it’s still not completely understood how it works.
I have heard of people waking up in the middle of the night and cooking/eating a complete meal, and having no recollection of it until they see the dishes in the morning.
Quote: RSA black out is when you have a complete lack of memory of an event. Has nothing to do with going to sleep. Portions of a night can be blacked out, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the night is blacked out. Oftentimes you don’t remember going to sleep, just because you were blacked out during that time.
I don't know then, because that seems ambiguous. The only thing I can say to that is that I don't believe I have any nights that I don't remember at all, so if that's the definition you're using, I have never blacked out. Since I have never blacked out, I can say that I find it believable that others have not blacked out.
An alcohol-induced blackout is when alcohol prevents the formation of memories, in particular long term memories. That means you might be able to hold a conversation, or do other things, and later have no memory of it.
It is different than passing out, and it doesn't mean you have to forget an entire night to qualify.
The black-out refers to the black hole in your memories, not your state of functioning at the time.
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/186-196.htm
just one quote from the article
Quote:Blackouts represent episodes of amnesia, during which subjects are capable of participating even in salient, emotionally charged events—as well as more mundane events—that they later cannot remember (Goodwin 1995).
Quote: Mission146I don't know then, because that seems ambiguous. The only thing I can say to that is that I don't believe I have any nights that I don't remember at all, so if that's the definition you're using, I have never blacked out. Since I have never blacked out, I can say that I find it believable that others have not blacked out.
It includes parts of a night that you don’t remember. Usually you black out then you end up going to sleep later. But sometimes you can black out, go do something else, and totally forget about it. Like if you were drinking before a football game, you might remember being at someone house partying and drinking, then nothing, then being at the football game, but nothing in between.
Quote: gamerfreakAmbien is a crazy drug.
I don't mind saying that I take Ambien. As far as I know, I've never done anything in my sleep except sleep. Then again, maybe I have and the evidence hasn't been used against me yet. I need to switch to something else, as I'm building an immunity to it.
Quote: RS
It includes parts of a night that you don’t remember. Usually you black out then you end up going to sleep later. But sometimes you can black out, go do something else, and totally forget about it. Like if you were drinking before a football game, you might remember being at someone house partying and drinking, then nothing, then being at the football game, but nothing in between.
In that case I have blacked out and find it hard to believe that anybody who drinks with any real frequency has not. It's rare, but it happens. Like I said, I don't remember going from the vehicle at Downtown Grand to the room, but that was only a loss of probably about three minutes.
Quote: AxelWolfNo one cares that Ford is a liar.
Are you referring to the accusation from the ex-boyfriend about the polygraph?
So, Ford's testimony is discounted by republicans as a woman ruining a man's reputation with unsubstantiated claims. We now have to "fear for our young men" because of this phenomenon. However, unsubstantiated accusations from an ex-boyfriend who admits the relationship did not end amicably is to be absolutely accepted as truth? And the person that he accused Ford of helping with the polygraph has adamantly denied the charge?
Apparently, in La La La Trump land, only women make things up to destroy reputations.
I'm willing to admit that there are some inconsistencies and innocent holes (to believe they are not innocent, you'd have to believe that this is a democratic conspiracy, roll with that if you choose) in Ford's testimony as long as Kava-naughty supporters can admit that he has lied, repeatedly, to Congress. He is applying for the highest court of the land, and unfortunately, for him, lying to Congress is disqualifying. He displayed a complete lack of temperament. He was disrespectful. He was petulant. And oh, he outed himself as a political operative. All of which are disqualifying for the job he is applying for.
I hope the FBI investigates where the information takes them.
Republicans – Kananaugh is innocent, vote for him now to the Supreme Court
Democrats – Kavaugh is guilty, the investigation is a sham, need to interview many many more people, delay the vote,
I take Ambien and it is a miracle drug for me. Others I have tried have a long lag time before they work, so it's a guessing game.Quote: WizardI don't mind saying that I take Ambien. As far as I know, I've never done anything in my sleep except sleep. Then again, maybe I have and the evidence hasn't been used against me yet. I need to switch to something else, as I'm building an immunity to it.
I like how Ambien seems to have something in it, so when the sleep period is over, I wake up fairly clear. Other meds make my head feel like it is stuffed with cotton balls for days.
When I first started taking Ambien, I did have a couple eating episodes, but my body seems to have acclimated to it. The trick for me is taking it, on my way to bed.
Quote: AxelWolfNo one cares that Ford is a liar.
That's not true. Seems like the entirety of the" he man, women haters society" has completely embraced that narrative.
Quote: FleaswatterIf the FBI report finds no credible evidence to support the accusations against Kavanaugh, I predict:
Republicans – Kananaugh is innocent, vote for him now to the Supreme Court
Democrats – Kavaugh is guilty, the investigation is a sham, need to interview many many more people, delay the vote,
CNN is.reporting two separate things
1) that the FBI has finished its investigation.
Separately, they have a list of twenty people the Democrats asked to be interviewed. How many do you think have been interviewed?
Would you be shocked that none of them have been? Full investigation,indeed.
Quote: billryanCNN is.reporting two separate things
1) that the FBI has finished its investigation.
Separately, they have a list of twenty people the Democrats asked to be interviewed. How many do you think have been interviewed?
Would you be shocked that none of them have been? Full investigation,indeed.
And Ford/Kavanaugh were not interviewed by request of the White House.
A+ investigation, very thorough.
Quote: FleaswatterIf the FBI report finds no credible evidence to support the accusations against Kavanaugh, I predict:
Republicans – Kananaugh is innocent, vote for him now to the Supreme Court
Democrats – Kavaugh is guilty, the investigation is a sham, need to interview many many more people, delay the vote,
Based on the recent polling, it looks like this whole fight over Kavanaugh is really revving up the GOP base and motivating them for the midterms.
So maybe the *Republicans* will start pushing for a delay. Confirm him next week and he’ll be forgotten by Nov. 6th...
Quote: ams288Based on the recent polling, it looks like this whole fight over Kavanaugh is really revving up the GOP base and motivating them for the midterms.
So maybe the *Republicans* will start pushing for a delay. Confirm him next week and he’ll be forgotten by Nov. 6th...
Lindsey Graham Is Booed For Brett Kavanaugh Remarks, Tells Crowd 'Boo Yourself’
Just something he said that would incriminate premeditation for something like he did.Quote: VCUSkyhawkYou say he got a year, I take that to mean he was convicted. How do you feel your testimony would have influenced the sentence?
Quote: gamerfreakLindsey Graham Is Booed For Brett Kavanaugh Remarks, Tells Crowd 'Boo Yourself’
Damn this guy is a G
Don't worry, they won't .Quote: djatcSomething that came out of this entire shindig is that I need to vote this upcoming election. Too many crazies that I do not want representing my country.
First, I see this as a class "he said / she said." I accuse neither side of lying and make no guesses what really happened. I know, *yawn.*
Second, I think a lesson to be learned here is too report these things after they happen. I'm not saying press charges or file a civil suit, just file a police report and move on, if you don't like your chances in court. If somebody is attempting rape, or worse, once he probably does it often. One accuser may be a "he said/she said," but multiple accusers is a horse of a different color. Thus, I submit to the women of the country that the movement shouldn't be "me too," but "me first."
Quote: ams288Based on the recent polling, it looks like this whole fight over Kavanaugh is really revving up the GOP base and motivating them for the midterms.
So maybe the *Republicans* will start pushing for a delay. Confirm him next week and he’ll be forgotten by Nov. 6th...
Its funny I rarely agree with anything you say politically, but I can see this. I hate to be an *sshole, but I would sacrifice Kavanaugh to keep the house. Although I understand that no amount of revving up is going to stop the dems from taking the house.
Quote: onenickelmiracleJust something he said that would incriminate premeditation for something like he did.
Oh gotcha. Damn I would feel bad too. Try not to beat yourself up too much about it though.
Quote: beachbumbabs1. This is a job interview, not a criminal trial.
2. Mitchell did question for 3-4 Senators on Kavanaugh. Then Graham took his time back and she never spike again.
3. Before you use her (paid) opinion, ask yourself: where is her report on Kavanaugh? She was there for the entire questioning of him, and did some of it herself. Why was only her opinion on Ford released?
1) So you're saying it's OK to deny someone a job (and ruin his life in the process) based on a mere accusation? You can't accuse someone of something with no evidence nor witnesses and then when they defend themselves and provide more evidence that they didn't do it than evidence provided against them say well it's not based on criminal convictions but mere allegations. You can't make something up and then when disproven use the disproven allegation to say well simply because of the seriousness of the accusation someone should be denied something.
As a single, young white male, I can't help but say to myself throughout this entire process, why bother even trying? You could work your whole, play by the rules, have countless people vouch for you and have all of it ruined based on political and social motives of other people. Men would say, how do we protect ourselves? The universal response would be well it's simple, don't abuse women. Well we know now that that isn't enough to protect yourself anymore. The testimony of hundreds of women who actually know you including the former Secretary of State is not enough to protect you against even one unverifiable accusation.
2) She questioned him enough to get his account of things and his denial of ever having any sexual contact with the accuser. What else is she supposed to ask him? She can't ask him where he was on such and such date because the accuser can't remember the date. She can't ask him if he had have been to such and such house because the accuser can't remember which house it happened in. Graham took back the floor when it was clear that the whole hearing was just a charade by the democrats. The truth was never their goal, just seek and destroy. As pointed out, Dr Ford is perhaps just as much a victim in all of this as Kavanaugh. She is just a tool. Her accusations were never addressed during the previous hearing even though they were known all along because the Democrats were only going to use them once it became clear that they couldn't destroy him on the merits.
3) There's no report on Kavanaugh because that's not why she was there. She was there because the media had a frenzy about the realization that 11 white Republican men would be questioning a woman making sexual assault allegations. She is a sexual assault prosecutor. She brings cases like this to trial for a living. So don't you think her opinion of the accusers testimony is important? She is aware of what is needed to bring about a criminal conviction.
I served on a jury a few years ago. It was a civil case against an insurance company, not a criminal case. What was made abundantly clear throughout the entire trial was that the typical "shadow of a doubt" required in a criminal case is not required in a civil one. It is simply a "preponderance of the evidence". In other words 51% for one side or the other was enough to completely side with one party. She is stating that if brought to trial not only would the accusations not meet the criminal requirement, they don't even meet the civil one. So in her opinion, Dr Ford's accusations are more not believable than believeable. Of course I looked all day to find this rather newsworthy report on CNN but they were too busy investigating a bar fight that happened over 30 years ago. I think if these accusations fail to bring him down, surely IceCubeGate will.
Oh no! Poor young white males! Wait, what does white have to do with it? Anyway, I think we will be ok. 5% false allegations sucks, but it also sucks for the 30% of women that are sexually abused.. I guess life isn’t fair.
Finally, his life is not ruined! Do you know how many jobs I have not gotten? He gets to keep his current job, and he aced his interview for Fox News. The best case scenario for him is the Supreme Court, and worse case is either more fame/money, or back to relative obscurity. He gets to choose.
People are assigning too much importance to this. If he gets in, it doesn’t mean it’s open season on sexually assaulting people. If he doesn’t, someone with the exact same ideology is going to get the job.
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classeds sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."
Quote: FleaswatterI found the evidence, he wrote this:
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh
He made typos in his book? Anyway, I’m guessing if he sexually assaulted someone, we would have found out by now.
Quote: FinsRuleQuote: FleaswatterI found the evidence, he wrote this:
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classed sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh
He made typos in his book? Anyway, I’m guessing if he sexually assaulted someone, we would have found out by now.
Thanks for the catch, I corrected the quote.
Quote: FleaswatterI found the evidence, he wrote this:
"I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, locking away the questions that life seemed insistent on imposing. I kept playing basketball, attended classeds sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically."oops, it was Barack Obama in "Dreams of my Father" not Kavanuagh
So if Obama could come out about it why does Kavanaugh feel the need to lie
Quote: Sandybestdog1) So you're saying it's OK to deny someone a job (and ruin his life in the process) based on a mere accusation? You can't accuse someone of something with no evidence nor witnesses and then when they defend themselves and provide more evidence that they didn't do it than evidence provided against them say well it's not based on criminal convictions but mere allegations. You can't make something up and then when disproven use the disproven allegation to say well simply because of the seriousness of the accusation someone should be denied something.
Nope. Didn't say that. I am saying he lies, he's partisan where he's required to be impartial, and he's not good enough for the job he's applying for. He doesn't get it, ooh, hurt him by sending him back to his top-salary Court of Appeals job. Except he's not good enough for that either, because he lied to get it. Felons don't belong in the judge's chair in court.
What makes you think you're the only class of person who is or can be the victim of false accusations? It happens to the rest of us all the time. Entitle much? You're buying into the paranoid bs Trump is putting out there.Quote:
As a single, young white male, I can't help but say to myself throughout this entire process, why bother even trying? You could work your whole, play by the rules, have countless people vouch for you and have all of it ruined based on political and social motives of other people. Men would say, how do we protect ourselves? The universal response would be well it's simple, don't abuse women. Well we know now that that isn't enough to protect yourself anymore. The testimony of hundreds of women who actually know you including the former Secretary of State is not enough to protect you against even one unverifiable accusation.
She had just started to ask him about the date of July 1, which contained several of the names of people she said were there. She got cut off by a nonsense rant, and no Republican asked him anything of substance after that. God forbid they should ask a question that had anything to do with finding any truth.Quote:
2) She questioned him enough to get his account of things and his denial of ever having any sexual contact with the accuser. What else is she supposed to ask him? She can't ask him where he was on such and such date because the accuser can't remember the date. She can't ask him if he had have been to such and such house because the accuser can't remember which house it happened in.
You bought that? Wow. He interceded to shut Mitchell up. We'd already had one paranoid conspiracy-laden rant that day, so why not throw another? He was auditioning for Attorney General or Chief of Staff, both of which will be vacant very soon.Quote:Graham took back the floor when it was clear that the whole hearing was just a charade by the democrats. The truth was never their goal, just seek and destroy.
Dr Ford did not want her name known and did not want to testify. She was leaked by someone with an agenda. You did get that she initiated the warning when she heard he was on the list right? Before he was nominated. Some conspiracy. Like they could fill in the blank on her accusation with whatever Judge Trump put up for consideration. /sarcasmQuote:As pointed out, Dr Ford is perhaps just as much a victim in all of this as Kavanaugh. She is just a tool. Her accusations were never addressed during the previous hearing even though they were known all along because the Democrats were only going to use them once it became clear that they couldn't destroy him on the merits.
Still not a criminal trial. And yes, if she were doing the job she was supposedly hired to do, and probably did, she took an expert read on Kavanaugh, his lies, bluster, deflection, and insouciance, and wrote that report, too. But we'll never see it.Quote:
3) There's no report on Kavanaugh because that's not why she was there. She was there because the media had a frenzy about the realization that 11 white Republican men would be questioning a woman making sexual assault allegations. She is a sexual assault prosecutor. She brings cases like this to trial for a living. So don't you think her opinion of the accusers testimony is important? She is aware of what is needed to bring about a criminal conviction.
Quote:
I served on a jury a few years ago. It was a civil case against an insurance company, not a criminal case. What was made abundantly clear throughout the entire trial was that the typical "shadow of a doubt" required in a criminal case is not required in a civil one. It is simply a "preponderance of the evidence". In other words 51% for one side or the other was enough to completely side with one party. She is stating that if brought to trial not only would the accusations not meet the criminal requirement, they don't even meet the civil one. So in her opinion, Dr Ford's accusations are more not believable than believeable. Of course I looked all day to find this rather newsworthy report on CNN but they were too busy investigating a bar fight that happened over 30 years ago. I think if these accusations fail to bring him down, surely IceCubeGate will.
It'a not a civil trial, either. It's not analogous. Mitchell was a showpiece because the Republicans were too chickens!#/ about the campaign commercials they would fill, to do their jobs. And most too full of malice and disbelief to treat Dr. Ford with enough respect to question her without providing that fodder. Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake get a better grade from me, in retrospect, because at least they recognize some compassion in themselves, and are still human enough to recognize when they're being shined on.
You're being manipulated by people with an agenda. So am I. But I know there are much better choices for SCOTUS than this partisan hack. Conservative or not. I was pleased to support John Roberts. I don't agree with his every decision, but he's a fine justice. I didn't oppose Gorsuch except for the procedural nastiness about Garland. But this guy?
He's not good enough. His entitlement alone makes him a bad judge. He doesn't respect the rights of the people he rules on.
The whole point of a lifetime appointment is to provide the freedom from obligations and debts to powerful people. You can't put a party operative in there, any more than you can put a lobbyist in that seat. His obligations are too heavy.
I'm entering this thread at page 30 and have been trying to ignore the barrage of accusations and counter-accusations.
Criminal trial, civil trial, .... burdens of "proof" ??
Its all just an opportunity to win by grabbing the headlines. I'm reminded of that sports team that had its visitors locker room painted pink... everything was viewed as a chance to win. Hearings, twitter, news feeds, cartoons, ... no one listens to evidence any more, its all sound bites being drowned out by other sound bites.
The only revelation being made is the total lack of character for everyone involved.
OH, BULLSH*T! x1000. That's what she wants you to think, and you fell for that BS, so sad, I thought you were smarter than that.Quote: beachbumbabsDr Ford did not want her name known and did not want to testify.
Nowadays, Apparently, you ain't cool unless you #MeToo.
