Trump's Second and Third year in office

Quote: AxelWolf

I don't think so, but I could also be wrong. Perhaps I will remember it better 36 years from now.


Why did she go upstairs in the first place?

Not sure why I'm asking since it didn't happen in the first place.

I don't disbelieve her claims, just for the record, so I don't want it to be seen as though I am doubting Blasey Ford's claims. Unlike Swetnick's claim, Blasey Ford's claim is not objectively ridiculous.

She says that she went upstairs to use the restroom and was intercepted into the bedroom before she could use the bathroom. I am sure that she said that, but I also think she said she was followed up the steps.

Quote: Mission146

When it comes to drinking, everyone is different. In my experience, I almost never vomit but have blacked out with some degree of frequency. Usually, in the rare event that I have vomited, I have not blacked out.

I also don't know if we are using, "Blacked out," the same way. I take it to mean, essentially, "Losing consciousness without deliberately choosing to fall asleep." If you mean it in terms of, "Losing memory," I have done that even on instances where I did deliberately choose to fall asleep. In any case, I almost never vomit, but usually choose to go directly to sleep in the rare case that I do. Also, on vomiting, I almost always (if not always) remember that I vomited the following day.

I mean black out as drinking to the point of losing memory.

I’d be willing to bet he thought that answer out so no one would suggest that he could have gotten so drunk that he participated in these assaults without remembering.

But he openly admits to being a binge drinker in his youth, and I highly doubt he never ever drank too much and “blacked out”.

This is just another thing that speaks to his willingness to lie under oath.

Quote: darkoz

So Mission. Hypothetical question here

You are interviewing someone for a job position

Another individual approaches you and alerts you they were the victim of an attempted rape years ago by that possible future employee

And then a 2nd and a 3rd person made similar statement?

You would unequivocally hire the person? Just give no credence to the person alerting you?

From a business perspective that doesnt sound like a wise decision svsn if you arent certain who is telling the truth

And you have hundreds of other qualified candidates!

Quote: Mission146

Well, let's talk about not necessarily, "Prove," but what kind of case you could build off of that:

Well, as far as the sophistication of evidence gathering, we're talking about the mind of a 15 year old girl not what you or professional investigator know is possible. Her against two older boys. That's what she is thinking,

Quote:

I don't find it reasonable to accuse someone of something after the statute of limitations has passed without even the faintest shred of proof..

Really? Let's say 20 years ago you're in a room alone with Donald Trump. He tells you some really awful things he's planning to do, Atrocities. He becomes president and you're going to tell no one because you can't prove it and won't be believed? C''mon?? Be a hero not a zero.

Quote: darkoz

So Mission. Hypothetical question here

You are interviewing someone for a job position

Another individual approaches you and alerts you they were the victim of an attempted rape years ago by that possible future employee

You would unequivocally hire the person? Just give no credence to the person alerting you?

From a business perspective that doesnt sound like a wise decision svsn if you arent certain who is telling the truth

The first thing is that the answer obviously depends where you are in charge of hiring.

Beyond that, I would ask the person doing the accusing if there was a conviction, or if they at least had a copy of a police report they could show me.

I also think it would depend on the job, wouldn't it? Like, are people actually convicted of sexual assault and who have served their time never supposed to work anywhere again? If so, that's the first I've heard of it. One of my jobs was being a supervisor at a call center, but I occasionally filled in on hiring if the, "Recruiter," was out on vacation or something. We pretty much hired people who had done time as a matter of course, it was a telemarketing job. The halfway house literally sent people to us. They really needed the job and were actually some of the best employees, not sexual assaulters, specifically, just ex-cons in general. Condition of parole, in some cases.

I don't know why this would automatically be a bad decision from a business perspective. I can say it wouldn't at the telemarketing place, the whole entire place was on camera, including the parking lot. I don't think anybody is likely to attempt to rape anybody else in front of 120 people, so I don't think it's going to come up. I also don't know what you mean by, "Aren't certain who is telling the truth?" How would you become certain? I don't believe that I was authorized in any job I've ever had to conduct criminal investigations.

I would run a criminal background check on the person if I weren't already going to do that. Depending on the job and the position, that might already be happening anyway. I think the person who you didn't hire (if you were stupid enough to tell them you otherwise would have hired them) might have an employment case against you for refusing to hire them as a result of an unsupported accusation.

I usually did background checks at the hotel and anything related to a theft conviction or conviction for any violent crime would have disqualified you from that. For males, I also would often go to County and look and see if there were any police reports on them, as well as go to the Court of Common Pleas to see if there were any actions in the County pending or anything they did get off of...but they had no idea I did that.

Hotels are a weird environment in almost every way. I had some girl call in screaming at me that she was dating our bartender and that he hit her a few days back. I asked her if it happened at the hotel, she said no and I told her to go tell the police and asked her what the hell she thinks it has to do with me. She responded that I should fire him for being physically abusive to her. True story, swear to God. I told her to go do a police report and if he's found guilty of something I would think about it.

I had a few other instances where people would call in and accuse the hotel's employees of stuff. One guy called in to say he was dating one of the housekeepers and that she was dealing weed in her free time. My response, of course, was, "If she works her shifts and the rooms are clean, I don't know what makes you think I care."

Seriously, everyone should work hotels for at least a year. It's completely bizarre.

Anyway, I wouldn't unequivocally hire them. Was I going to hire them anyway? Either way, an unsupported and unprovable allegation would generally have no impact on my decision.

Quote: rxwine

Well, as far as the sophistication of evidence gathering, we're talking about the mind of a 15 year old girl not what you or professional investigator know is possible. Her against two older boys. That's what she is thinking,

I don't know what to tell you. When you're dealing with an accusation of a very serious crime for which the statute of limitations has tolled AND the person has absolutely no proof whatsoever, I don't think the person should be allowed to make the accusation from a legal standpoint. I'm sorry. It's really as simple as that and that is where it begins and ends with me. You shouldn't be allowed to have a detrimental effect on someone's life and that of the person's friends and family by accusing that person of a very serious crime unless you can prove it.

It's the very seriousness of the crime that is the thing, here. We're not talking about public urination.

Quote:

Really? Let's say 20 years ago you're in a room alone with Donald Trump. He tells you some really awful things he's planning to do, Atrocities. He becomes president and you're going to tell no one because you can't prove it and won't be believed? C''mon?? Be a hero not a zero.

I don't get the connection between the two things. You're talking about future events in this hypothetical, not unprovable past ones.

Quote: Mission146

I don't get the connection between the two things. You're talking about future events in this hypothetical, not unprovable past ones.

Well the idea is they are both unprovable at the time of telling, I can't believe you would feel no responsibility to tell the truth about some evil even if the only evidence is your word against theirs,

Quote: gamerfreak

I mean black out as drinking to the point of losing memory.

I’d be willing to bet he thought that answer out so no one would suggest that he could have gotten so drunk that he participated in these assaults without remembering.

But he openly admits to being a binge drinker in his youth, and I highly doubt he never ever drank too much and “blacked out”.

This is just another thing that speaks to his willingness to lie under oath.

I agree with all of these statements 100%. Like I said, if he admits that any part of these allegations could even conceivably be possible, then the Democrats are going to jump all over, "We shouldn't confirm him, he as much as admitted this happened!"

So, no, he is painted into a corner such that he cannot admit to drinking to the point of blacking out. I also agree with you that it is difficult to believe that one could drink with any great heaviness or frequency and NOT black out sooner or later. It happens t almost everyone. But, if you ask of the 100 Senators whether or not they have ever been blackout drunk, I bet a good number of them who have would also say, "No," and they're not being accused of anything criminal.

It's all a bunch of make-believe pretend caricatures of people who all claim to be morally perfect whereas none of whom are. They're pretty much all likely to be complete POS's in my opinion, just some measurably less-so than others. I'm quite confident that most, if not all, of those guys drank as kids to the point of blackout and were the same general types of accusations made against them, those guys couldn't prove them wrong either.

Anyway, you pretty much admit in your second sentence that he was backed into a corner such that he really had no choice but to lie. He can't give a categorical denial as to this event or that one if he has ever blacked out in his entire life. That doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the event.

Anyway, you don't need to convince me that he's a POS. He's a Conservative, he seems staunchly religious and he comes from money...that's already everything about him that I'll ever need to know to feel it safe to assume he's a POS. Look at that nonsense he spewed about his daughter saying, "Pray for that woman." He probably wrote it down on a piece of paper and said, "Read this," that way it would become true that his daughter said it, even though it's not like his daughter is going to be called to testify as to whether or not she ever said that.

Like I said, caricatures of people. Crocodile tears on both sides and from both parties. The whole thing is really a joke. My concerns are really just the implications when it comes to the part of society that actually matters, actual human beings.

Honestly, I don't care if Kavanaugh gets confirmed or not simply because I would rather not have another Conservative justice. A conservative justice is what we're getting either way, though, so better get used to that.

Quote: rxwine

Well the idea is they are both unprovable at the time of telling, I can't believe you would feel no responsibility to tell the truth about some evil even if the only evidence is your word against theirs,

What evil are you talking about? Does it relate to a specific future event? Can you give me a more specific example?

Quote: Mission146

The first thing is that the answer obviously depends where you are in charge of hiring.

Beyond that, I would ask the person doing the accusing if there was a conviction, or if they at least had a copy of a police report they could show me.

I also think it would depend on the job, wouldn't it? Like, are people actually convicted of sexual assault and who have served their time never supposed to work anywhere again? If so, that's the first I've heard of it. One of my jobs was being a supervisor at a call center, but I occasionally filled in on hiring if the, "Recruiter," was out on vacation or something. We pretty much hired people who had done time as a matter of course, it was a telemarketing job. The halfway house literally sent people to us. They really needed the job and were actually some of the best employees, not sexual assaulters, specifically, just ex-cons in general. Condition of parole, in some cases.

I don't know why this would automatically be a bad decision from a business perspective. I can say it wouldn't at the telemarketing place, the whole entire place was on camera, including the parking lot. I don't think anybody is likely to attempt to rape anybody else in front of 120 people, so I don't think it's going to come up. I also don't know what you mean by, "Aren't certain who is telling the truth?" How would you become certain? I don't believe that I was authorized in any job I've ever had to conduct criminal investigations.

I would run a criminal background check on the person if I weren't already going to do that. Depending on the job and the position, that might already be happening anyway. I think the person who you didn't hire (if you were stupid enough to tell them you otherwise would have hired them) might have an employment case against you for refusing to hire them as a result of an unsupported accusation.

I usually did background checks at the hotel and anything related to a theft conviction or conviction for any violent crime would have disqualified you from that. For males, I also would often go to County and look and see if there were any police reports on them, as well as go to the Court of Common Pleas to see if there were any actions in the County pending or anything they did get off of...but they had no idea I did that.

Hotels are a weird environment in almost every way. I had some girl call in screaming at me that she was dating our bartender and that he hit her a few days back. I asked her if it happened at the hotel, she said no and I told her to go tell the police and asked her what the hell she thinks it has to do with me. She responded that I should fire him for being physically abusive to her. True story, swear to God. I told her to go do a police report and if he's found guilty of something I would think about it.

I had a few other instances where people would call in and accuse the hotel's employees of stuff. One guy called in to say he was dating one of the housekeepers and that she was dealing weed in her free time. My response, of course, was, "If she works her shifts and the rooms are clean, I don't know what makes you think I care."

Seriously, everyone should work hotels for at least a year. It's completely bizarre.

Anyway, I wouldn't unequivocally hire them. Was I going to hire them anyway? Either way, an unsupported and unprovable allegation would generally have no impact on my decision.

Well for one thing it would be a bad decision business wise because if this hired hand does another assault on an employee AND there is testimony from the initial accusers that you were made aware of his past unreported crimes you open your business to a serious lawsuit for improper hiring and who knows what else

The argument that ex-cons need work too would probably be a statement you would rue in a suit of that nature

Quote: AxelWolf

I wonder how BBB feels about someone with security clearance previously enabling gang rappers.

See everything, say nothing, until 30+ years later when you are coerced to do so.

I think you're too young. You didn't get to put any of this in context growing up.

1980 was a crazy time for teenagers and early 20s (I was in my senior year in college ).

Our parents had just spent a decade swinging. Very few kids were virgins by the time they were 18. Everybody drank. If the cops stopped you, they had you park the car and get a taxi, or they followed you home to make sure you got there. My college served keggers every Friday free, and you only had to be 18 to get served. Gays were coming out in large numbers for the first time. Women were having kids out of wedlock. Peer pressure to cut loose, drink, party, get laid was very high.

Then came the big backlash. AIDS. Reagan revolution. Moral majority. MADD. Tobacco bannings. Suddenly (really fast, not just rhetorical, like this all changed within months ) cool was suits and dresses, preppies, money, power, cocaine instead of pot, fake piety. The partying and sex went underground. Except in colleges and prep schools - full on Animal House.

The Richie rich prep guys were the Masters of the Universe (and nobody knew it better than them). The Ultimate Catch. Parents pointed their daughters at these guys, covered their eyes, and hoped for the best. Michael J Fox was the biggest TV star playing an entitled business teenager. Greed was good. All that stuff.

But the kids had grown up seeing the previous generation get crazy and learning from them. They continued that - the kids just didn't do it openly any more. Just look at the movies from the time - the young women were always getting handled and groped, dumped, used, and they were confused and disillusioned about the reality not matching the fairy tale.

So none of these stories these women have been telling are out of line with how kids partied back then. If you were a young woman or man, learning how to socialize and hold your drink (and not drinking was not polite or cool) came with some serious bumps.

I'm pretty sure a lot of what you're seeing with Kavanaugh is him not knowing he was turning into a monster when he drank. And a strong allegiance to whatever Code the guys operated under as kids together. Omerta was a big deal, even though nobody was mobsters.

I find it very significant that he doesn't support an FBI investigation into the truth. It might not even be to hide his own misbehavior, which he may not remember, but that of his friends, specifically Judge.

The others saying they don't remember anything about it is an easy out. The unwillingness to testify under oath by Judge, and going into hiding, is pretty important, too. They hedge, though. They're not saying it didn't happen, or couldn't happen; they say they don't recall, or don't remember. And for most of them, there was no reason for them to remember. They weren't traumatized, they were just partying, one time among many.

It's just so different now. All the underlying assumptions of how you were supposed to be were different. The specifics of these cases barely scratches the surface of the general social scene they were all trying to navigate.

As to his tearful anger and frustration - he was told, and coached for days, to ramp it up and be that guy. I think it was both genuine and practiced. He was performing, amplifying. It may have been effective, maybe not. We'll see soon.

Quote: Mission146

What evil are you talking about? Does it relate to a specific future event? Can you give me a more specific example?

Let's try this:

Let's say 30 years ago you were a 7 year old girl in a polygamist community. Your dad forced you to perform oral sex on him on and off for two years. It was never discovered by anyone else. No, real evidence, just your word against his. On top of that your dad defends himself by noting he had 4 wives at the time taking care of his needs,

You're absolutely telling the truth.. This man Is evil, but there is next to no way to prove it. I just can't believe someone who knows they telling the truth needs any other moral justification to speak out against evil than it's the truth.

Quote: darkoz

Well for one thing it would be a bad decision business wise because if this hired hand does another assault on an employee AND there is testimony from the initial accusers that you were made aware of his past unreported crimes you open your business to a serious lawsuit for improper hiring and who knows what else

The argument that ex-cons need work too would probably be a statement you would rue in a suit of that nature

I already told you that the entire call center was on camera, and other than the following places:

-Training Room
-Recruiting Room
-Reception Area
-Quality Manager Office
-IT Office
-General Manager's Office
-Meeting Room
-Breakroom
-Bathrooms

The whole entire place was one big open floor of cubicles with 120 people (or more) in it at any given time, so there would be no opportunity for anything that you are describing to happen. Two people of opposite genders were never even allowed to be in the same room together alone as a matter of company policy, this despite the fact that all of the rooms had cameras! The notion was that someone could theoretically say something inappropriate to someone else that the cameras wouldn't hear, or maybe there was no sound in some of the rooms, I forget which.

Anyway, businesses, "Open themselves up to a serious lawsuit," by existing. Like I said, if someone comes running in making unsubstantiated accusations about an applicant or employee and you refuse to hire/terminate them for that reason (and you're stupid enough to tell them that's why you did it) then that could be a lawsuit.

I want to know how the Democrats, which I believe you claim to be, the party of rehabilitation and second chances can come out with:

Quote:

The argument that ex-cons need work too would probably be a statement you would rue in a suit of that nature

So, you want to release them from jail/prison and then....what? How are they supposed to feed themselves or have a place to live if they are not supposed to be hirable anywhere? Aren't the Democrats supposed to be big on rehabilitation and second chances? Maybe I'm mistaken and they're not, but I happen to hold those values.

Like I said, in the context of a hotel, where you might be alone in a room with other employees...this is something that I would consider. I didn't consider the allegations against the bartender sufficiently credible because:

-I asked for her name and she wouldn't give it to me.
-I told her to go file a police report and then bring it to me and I would at least ask for his side. (Obviously, having a bartender with that kind of volatile temper might not be good) Needless to say, I never received any such police report.
-She wouldn't give me any details of the event, like where or when.

Anyway, imagine that I go down to the bar and cut the guy loose for that and tell him that's why. "I'm going to terminate you because some girl who did not identify herself called and said you hit her a few days back, sorry, no other choice."

That's not going to go well and it has wrongful termination suit all over it.

On the other hand, if it's some employment where the guy will always be on the floor with 120 other people, then I tend to think there is less to worry about. Besides that, it's not like it was my personal policy in the first place, so I hire who the company says is hireable.

Quote: rxwine

Let's try this:

Let's say 30 years ago you were a 7 year old girl in a polygamist community. Your dad forced you to perform oral sex on him on and off for two years. It was never discovered by anyone else. No, real evidence, just your word against his. On top of that your dad defends himself by noting he had 4 wives at the time taking care of his needs,

You're absolutely telling the truth.. This man Is evil, but there is next to no way to prove it. I just can't believe someone who knows they telling the truth needs any other moral justification to speak out against evil than it's the truth.

In most jurisdictions, there would be no statute of limitations for a crime of an adult against someone who was a child at the time. In other words, a criminal complaint could be filed at any time and the law enforcement agency with subject matter jurisdiction could investigate.

you lost me.


I thought one of your points was, one shouldn't accuse anyone with no real evidence. I say you accuse someone if it's the truth. BECAUSE that's the right thing to do.

Quote: rxwine

you lost me.

I thought one of your points was, one shouldn't accuse anyone with no real evidence. I say you accuse someone if it's the truth. BECAUSE that's the right thing to do.

I said that you shouldn't accuse someone of something without proof AND if the Statute of Limitations has passed.

You can obviously accuse someone of a crime for which the Statute of Limitations has not expired, then the applicable law enforcement agency will determine whether there is enough information to launch an investigation. I would like to think that allegations of sexual abuse of a child, rape of a child and incest would at least result in an investigation.

Anyway, here you go:

If you can prove it = Fine, anytime.

If the statute of limitations has not expired = Fine, anytime.

If you cannot prove it AND the statute of limitations has expired = No, you may not accuse someone.

The reason why is because you're accusing them without proof and the law enforcement agency with subject matter jurisdiction, which is the appropriate entity to launch such an investigation and the appropriate court to be the finder of fact, literally could not launch an investigation and the court could not find fact even if it wanted to.

In other words, the accused (who likely cannot prove the accusations wrong) will also never get the opportunity to defend himself/herself against the accusations in the court with the appropriate subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike cases that are actually investigated and go before the proper criminal court, the person who is accused cannot be cleared by a jury of his/her peers because a trial on the underlying subject matter literally cannot happen.

So, any such accusation of a crime for which the accused literally has no means to clear his name in the court of law should be just as good as slander or defamation of character (depending on the circumstances) UNLESS the accuser can prove that the accusation is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

In that sense, our legal process exists not only for the accuser, but also for the accused.

It exists for the accuser because the accused can be found guilty of the crime and be made to endure the appropriate punishment commensurate with the crime.

It exists for the accused because the accused can be exonerated in the court of law, which is to say that the accused is found innocent or they decide there is insufficient evidence for an indictment.

If the statute of limitations has expired, then there can be no trial. If there can be no trial, then the accused cannot be found innocent by a court.

Quote: Mission146

I said that you shouldn't accuse someone of something without proof AND if the Statute of Limitations has passed.

My description of sexual violation of the 7 year old was specifically designed to be near unprovable. BUT It's still important if it's true, even if evidence is destroyed not because it is unprovable.
But anyway

Quote: Mission146

I said that you shouldn't accuse someone of something without proof AND if the Statute of Limitations has passed.

You can obviously accuse someone of a crime for which the Statute of Limitations has not expired, then the applicable law enforcement agency will determine whether there is enough information to launch an investigation. I would like to think that allegations of sexual abuse of a child, rape of a child and incest would at least result in an investigation.

Anyway, here you go:

If you can prove it = Fine, anytime.

If the statute of limitations has not expired = Fine, anytime.

If you cannot prove it AND the statute of limitations has expired = No, you may not accuse someone.

The reason why is because you're accusing them without proof and the law enforcement agency with subject matter jurisdiction, which is the appropriate entity to launch such an investigation and the appropriate court to be the finder of fact, literally could not launch an investigation and the court could not find fact even if it wanted to.

In other words, the accused (who likely cannot prove the accusations wrong) will also never get the opportunity to defend himself/herself against the accusations in the court with the appropriate subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike cases that are actually investigated and go before the proper criminal court, the person who is accused cannot be cleared by a jury of his/her peers because a trial on the underlying subject matter literally cannot happen.

So, any such accusation of a crime for which the accused literally has no means to clear his name in the court of law should be just as good as slander or defamation of character (depending on the circumstances) UNLESS the accuser can prove that the accusation is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

So Mission

It so happens that there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for sexual felony assault in the State of Maryland (look it up if you dont believe)

And yes that is where the Ford/Kavanaugh incident took place

Whether the Ford accusation rises to felony assault status would be up to a DA

But if it did, you have no problem with Fords accusations since the statute for those charges would not have expired even from 36 years ago?

Quote: rxwine

My description of sexual violation of the 7 year old was specifically designed to be near unprovable. BUT It's still important if it's true, even if evidence is destroyed not because it is unprovable.
But anyway

The statute of limitations also wouldn’t be up in several jurisdictions, it could go to trial.

Quote: darkoz

So Mission

It so happens that there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS for sexual felony assault in the State of Maryland (look it up if you dont believe)

And yes that is where the Ford/Kavanaugh incident took place

Whether the Ford accusation rises to felony assault status would be up to a DA

But if it did, you have no problem with Fords accusations since the statute for those charges would not have expired even from 36 years ago?

I don’t know what makes you think I didn’t look it up. I usually don’t base my opinions off of nothing.

First and second degree sexual assaults are both felonies in the State of Maryland and have no statute of limitations. Sexual assault in the third degree is a misdemeanor and does have a statute.

You’re also quite correct that it would be up to the DA whether or not it’s a felony, or if it could be pled down to a misdemeanor. Of course, if the statute of limitations was not up under the felony, but was for the misdemeanor, then you’d have to bring the felony charge to bring any at all.

What you don’t seem to know is that those same statutes of limitations have changed since the events in question such that the statute had expired under any charge before the statute had changed to unlimited. Specifically, being a minor at the time, Blasey Ford had either three, five or seven years to bring her claim...I forget which.

In any case, the statute did expire so I do have a problem with it. If the statute had not expired, then no, I would have no problem and the proper mechanism would be a criminal complaint in the county of the incident that could then be investigated and criminal charges possibly brought against Kavanaugh.

Darkoz,

This has also been addressed here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/md-politics/several-md-lawmakers-call-for-montgomery-county-investigation-into-sexual-assault-allegations-against-kavanaugh/2018/09/26/48e00584-c1b5-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html

So, Blasey Ford could theoretically file a criminal complaint in the Montgomery County, who actually has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims and then they can either do an investigation or declare that the statute of limitations has passed.

If there is an investigation, he will either be cleared with no charges brought, charges will be brought and it will go to trial and he will be exonerated or he will go to trial and found guilty.

As yet, Blasey Ford has filed no such criminal complaint, but she’s certainly free to do so at anytime.

Mission if you believe something happened to you. you Mission, YOU were there and you experienced it, don't you think you have a right to report it whether the court decides against you. or not,

i'm bothered by your assertion someone can only bring charges if they think they have sufficient proof. Ford believes Kavanaugh attempted to rape her even if she isn't sure she has enough usable proof at this point,

Quote: rxwine

Mission if you believe something happened to you. you Mission, YOU were there and you experienced it, don't you think you have a right to report it whether the court decides against you. or not,

i'm bothered by your assertion someone can only bring charges if they think they have sufficient proof. Ford believes Kavanaugh attempted to rape her even if she isn't sure she has enough usable proof at this point,

Should we just start from the beginning and have the same conversation all over again?

There is a legal process that handles the reporting of crimes. It should be a crime to accuse anyone of a crime you cannot prove unless you’re going through the proper legal process and the statute of limitations is up. It’s basically slander and/or defamation, or should be. Obviously, that doesn’t mean people should get in trouble for filing a criminal complaint they believe to be true with the person eventually found innocent.

If you want to file a criminal complaint, then you have the right to do that. If you do file one, then it becomes a matter of record. If the County does an investigation and he’s not charged, then he can say, “They investigated me and declined to charge me for want of evidence.” If it’s statute of limitations, then he can say that.

The FBI has no subject matter jurisdiction in this case and many people seem not to want Kavanaugh investigated with an eye towards criminal justice. Beyond that, I still don’t think there is anything anyone could prove, but even if there was, the FBI does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

If there is a lesson we should be teaching people from this it is to go seek help from law enforcement as soon as possible if you are assaulted.

Quote: Mission146

If there is a lesson we should be teaching people from this it is to go seek help from law enforcement as soon as possible if you are assaulted.

Or educate people about possible psychological reactions. For instance, soldiers who experienced 'shell shock' were often considered cowards or lacking in moral fiber instead of it being classed as an injury.

Quote: Mission146

Again, I shudder to think of the job interview where someone just randomly pops in and accuses you of a crime that the accuser cannot prove right in the middle of your interview. I don't think anybody would ever get hired for anything.

As far as any factors outside of these allegations that would or would not be disqualifying, I have exactly no opinion whatsoever. I don't know anything about any of that. I just have a very strong opinion of accusing people of unprovable crimes well after the alleged crime happened...and an even bigger issue with the fact that we, as a society, are apparently supposed to immediately believe the accuser regardless of what the accusation is.

There is a huge difference between job interview for non-political position and the appointed/political position.

For non-political position, the interview is conducted in private between employer and the prospective employee, and the public has no input.

In contrast, for appointed/political position the job interview is conducted in public, and the public can also “participate” and to provide inputs if necessary through their representatives. And the reason appointed/political position interview is conducted in public because democracy demands transparency. Job interview for appointed/political position is an adversarial system/process where the public can play the role of private investigators, and as such “Perry Mason moment” can be the norm and should be anticipated, especially when the position is a high profile position, or a SCOTUS appointed lifetime position.

In this Kavanaugh’s job interview, there was a “Perry Mason moment” when Dr. Ford came forward with a rape assault allegation, and an FBI investigation is surely needed.

What are the odds of Ford being suicided sometime in the next few months? Kind of feel sorry for her. I don't think she realizes how sick the people she is dealing with really are. Maybe she will get to enjoy a little bit of her 7 figure payday. She should procure some good security. She is now worth more dead than alive to the Dems.

Quote: MaxPen

What are the odds of Ford being suicided sometime in the next few months? Kind of feel sorry for her. I don't think she realizes how sick the people she is dealing with really are. Maybe she will get to enjoy a little bit of her 7 figure payday. She should procure some good security. She is now worth more dead than alive to the Dems.

You really are a small, little man, aren't you? The sad thing is even you don't believe your lies, do you?

The Demoncrats ran a smear job, exposed themselves in front of the whole nation, and it is blowing up in their faces. Seems some D-Senators may be switching sides. Guess they don't want to be associated with the GloryHole Brigade.
As Babylon continues her downward spiral, you can expect the next step to turn violent, because they have lost this political battle.
The Dems are turning more desperate and pathetic by the day. There is nothing beneath them to try and further their agenda. Nothing

Quote: billryan

You really are a small, little man, aren't you? The sad thing is even you don't believe your lies, do you?

Your feathers ruffled or something? Typical lib response. When you have nothing else. Try and insult. You all must have read the same playbook.

Quote: MaxPen

Seems some D-Senators may be switching sides.

?
I doubt if any vote for him.

Quote: rxwine

?
I doubt if any vote for him.

I would think at least one or two. Unless they are all lemmings.

Quote: MaxPen

I would think at least one or two. Unless they are all lemmings.

Showing a cartoon of trump voters and the GOP going off the cliff like sheep lol

The American Bar Association has now pulled back their endorsement of Kavanaugh and is calling for an FBI investigation

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

I suppose the righties will now begine to impugn the American Bar Association as part of Democratic conspiracy lol

Quote: 777

There is a huge difference between job interview for non-political position and the appointed/political position.

Not according to some people. Darkoz, for one, seems to think that certain ex-cons are completely untouchable for employment. We’re talking about people who have actually done their time, in some cases.

Quote:

For non-political position, the interview is conducted in private between employer and the prospective employee, and the public has no input.

In contrast, for appointed/political position the job interview is conducted in public, and the public can also “participate” and to provide inputs if necessary through their representatives. And the reason appointed/political position interview is conducted in public because democracy demands transparency. Job interview for appointed/political position is an adversarial system/process where the public can play the role of private investigators, and as such “Perry Mason moment” can be the norm and should be anticipated, especially when the position is a high profile position, or a SCOTUS appointed lifetime position.

If you want a Democratic process, then justices for the Supreme Court should be a matter of public vote with votes occurring annually in the event of a vacancy. Or, it could just be a termed position. The #ConstitutionSucks, so you’ll never have that, though.

Anyway, nothing about any of this is transparent because the closed door meetings of the Democrat and Republican operatives are not transparent. The process that led Blasey Ford to testify in the first place is not transparent.

Anyway, there was no, “Perry Mason moment,” because as I recall, Perry Mason had a habit of actually proving stuff, but I might be thinking of the wrong show.

Quote:

In this Kavanaugh’s job interview, there was a “Perry Mason moment” when Dr. Ford came forward with a rape assault allegation, and an FBI investigation is surely needed.

The FBI lacks subject matter jurisdiction. If you guys want any chance of justice for Blasey Ford, then she should be encouraged to go to that county sheriff’s department and file a criminal complaint. If they decide the statute of limitations doesn’t prevent them from doing so, they can investigate it. I don’t know if they could request FBI assistance if they wanted it, but maybe they could.

Anyway, if you think that there’s enough to the claims and enough evidence left that he could be proven guilty, then the entity to do the investigating should be the one that actually has subject matter jurisdiction to charge him with something.

If you want to play politics and stall so that Democrats can maybe take the Senate in November and reject any candidate that they want to by way of numbers, then the FBI should investigate.

Quote: Mission146

Not according to some people. Darkoz, for one, seems to think that certain ex-cons are completely untouchable for employment. We’re talking about people who have actually done their time, in some cases.



If you want a Democratic process, then justices for the Supreme Court should be a matter of public vote with votes occurring annually in the event of a vacancy. Or, it could just be a termed position. The #ConstitutionSucks, so you’ll never have that, though.

Anyway, nothing about any of this is transparent because the closed door meetings of the Democrat and Republican operatives are not transparent. The process that led Blasey Ford to testify in the first place is not transparent.

Anyway, there was no, “Perry Mason moment,” because as I recall, Perry Mason had a habit of actually proving stuff, but I might be thinking of the wrong show.



The FBI lacks subject matter jurisdiction. If you guys want any chance of justice for Blasey Ford, then she should be encouraged to go to that county sheriff’s department and file a criminal complaint. If they decide the statute of limitations doesn’t prevent them from doing so, they can investigate it. I don’t know if they could request FBI assistance if they wanted it, but maybe they could.

Anyway, if you think that there’s enough to the claims and enough evidence left that he could be proven guilty, then the entity to do the investigating should be the one that actually has subject matter jurisdiction to charge him with something.

If you want to play politics and stall so that Democrats can maybe take the Senate in November and reject any candidate that they want to by way of numbers, then the FBI should investigate.

The American Bar Association does not agree with you

They have called for an FBI investigation

After previously backing Kavanaugh with their highest rating

Based on yesterday's testimony

You arent accusing the Bar of trying to stall for midterms are you?

Quote: MaxPen

What are the odds of Ford being suicided sometime in the next few months? Kind of feel sorry for her. I don't think she realizes how sick the people she is dealing with really are. Maybe she will get to enjoy a little bit of her 7 figure payday. She should procure some good security. She is now worth more dead than alive to the Dems.

You spent all day Wednesday convinced she wouldn't show up.

You were proven dead wrong. You lost money over it.

Now you pivot to this B.S. You think anyone is buying what you're selling?

Quote: MaxPen

The Demoncrats ran a smear job, exposed themselves in front of the whole nation, and it is blowing up in their faces. Seems some D-Senators may be switching sides. Guess they don't want to be associated with the GloryHole Brigade.
As Babylon continues her downward spiral, you can expect the next step to turn violent, because they have lost this political battle.
The Dems are turning more desperate and pathetic by the day. There is nothing beneath them to try and further their agenda. Nothing

Any proof besides “I hate liberals so they did this”?

The evidence that since some people don't even remember even being at a party is supportive of Kavennof version of events doesn't really impress me as convincing.

My mom kept a whole drawer full of school work and school projects I did through various years. Everything from homemade school valentines from the 3rd grade to term papers and book reports from high school. Some things I remember, but plenty of things draw not even a hint of memory, even things I clearly even signed my name and address on with a date. Forgetting an unremarkable party I attended? Sure, why not?

Quote: darkoz

The American Bar Association does not agree with you

They have called for an FBI investigation

After previously backing Kavanaugh with their highest rating

Based on yesterday's testimony

You arent accusing the Bar of trying to stall for midterms are you?

If we go for 100 more posts, I think you may eventually successfully make one point.

1.) The American Bar Association neither agrees or disagrees with me because they do not seem to be making a statement over who would have subject matter jurisdiction over a criminal complaint.

2.) The ABA says:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

Quote:

"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."

So, this has nothing to do with the FBI pursuing criminal action against Kavanaugh because the FBI lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to do so. They claim to want an investigation for the same reason the Democratic Senators claim to.

I also don't like their apparent assumption that all of the American people have any trust in the Supreme Court in the first place. I think the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of partisan hacks.

3.) You should E-Mail Trump and the Senate Judiciary Committee to the extent that you want an FBI investigation because the ABA has about as much authority to call for an FBI investigation as you do.

4.) As far as accusing the bar of anything, as if lawyers should automatically be held in any respect in the first place, I'm going to just say that the bar is doing what the bar thinks is best for the bar. Blasey Ford made her testimony, Kavanaugh made his, the bar is judging the public reaction to same and is making its decision accordingly.

Quote: Mission146

Not according to some people. Darkoz, for one, seems to think that certain ex-cons are completely untouchable for employment. We’re talking about people who have actually done their time, in some cases.



If you want a Democratic process, then justices for the Supreme Court should be a matter of public vote with votes occurring annually in the event of a vacancy. Or, it could just be a termed position. The #ConstitutionSucks, so you’ll never have that, though.

Anyway, nothing about any of this is transparent because the closed door meetings of the Democrat and Republican operatives are not transparent. The process that led Blasey Ford to testify in the first place is not transparent.

Anyway, there was no, “Perry Mason moment,” because as I recall, Perry Mason had a habit of actually proving stuff, but I might be thinking of the wrong show.



The FBI lacks subject matter jurisdiction. If you guys want any chance of justice for Blasey Ford, then she should be encouraged to go to that county sheriff’s department and file a criminal complaint. If they decide the statute of limitations doesn’t prevent them from doing so, they can investigate it. I don’t know if they could request FBI assistance if they wanted it, but maybe they could.

Anyway, if you think that there’s enough to the claims and enough evidence left that he could be proven guilty, then the entity to do the investigating should be the one that actually has subject matter jurisdiction to charge him with something.

If you want to play politics and stall so that Democrats can maybe take the Senate in November and reject any candidate that they want to by way of numbers, then the FBI should investigate.

Using Darkoz to support your "confirmation bias" viewpoint is like you are gasping for air and it shows that you have a complete lack of understanding of our current democratic system/process regarding the "job interview" issue. It is not what Darkoz, you and I want or wish for now, and for better or worse, this is the current democratic job interview process that we have, and we have to play the "democratic process" hand that is being dealt now (yes, the process can be changed in the future by amending the Constitution, new regulation/legislation).

The current and Kavanaugh's job interview process demand transparency and has public participation, but it does not mean that the public has the right know on everything for national security, personal privacy, or other confidential matters.

With regarding to FBI investigation, the non-partisan and highly respected American Bar Association (ABA) who gave Kavanaugh an endorsement had called for FBI investigation.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652461140/american-bar-association-reportedly-wants-fbi-investigation-ahead-of-kavanaugh-v

"The American Bar Association says the Senate should not hold a confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court until the FBI has investigated sexual assault allegations against him that were made by Christine Blasey Ford and other women."

I've stated previously in other post, you and I have vast different perspective on the democratic process, and now we can add the "FBI investigation" to our list different perspective that any regurgitation to these issues would be a complete waste of our time and the WOV bandwidth.

Quote: gamerfreak

Any proof besides “I hate liberals so they did this”?

I don't hate Liberals because I am one, I mean, if I'm anything at all. It's embarrassing to call oneself a, "Liberal," in today's day and age, I can tell you that. I don't like being associated with some of the company I keep using that descriptor.

I would say that the ridiculous claims of team Avenatti/Swetnick at least demonstrate, in part, that this is a smear campaign. With that said, the only people with any responsibility or control over what Avenatti and Swetnick say are, of course, Avenatti and Swetnick. Avenatti also said that he would be providing a credible witness and then proceeded to do the exact opposite of that. I don't see a lot of people lining up to support Swetnick's claims at all.

In fact, I think even the Democrats have to tacitly kind of admit that the PoS is just using this as a way to keep his name in the press. Although, the good news is that he has a different client who can likely give some direct insight on how gangbangs work...at least in the pornographic movies.

Anyway, I disagree that there is anything to indicate that any Democratic Senators will be switching sides, if for no other reason, because having your own opinion on something is against the rules of partisanism...as seems to be on display here somewhat.

As far as MaxPen's accusation that, "There is nothing beneath them to try and further their agenda," I agree with that, but then I also think the same is true of Republicans.

Jeff Flake is a YES on Kavanaugh.

Quote: 777

Using Darkoz to support your "confirmation bias" viewpoint is like you are gasping for air and it shows that you have a complete lack of understanding of our current democratic system/process regarding the "job interview" issue. It is not what Darkoz, you and I want or wish for now, and for better or worse, this is the current democratic job interview process that we have, and we have to play the "democratic process" hand that is being dealt now (yes, the process can be changed in the future by amending the Constitution, new regulation/legislation).

Okay, well your, "Democratic process," says that Trump can call for further FBI investigation if it wants to. I don't know whether or not the Senate Judiciary Committee could of its own accord or not, but it is apparently 11-10 Republican, so I'm guessing that they wouldn't even if they could. The Democratic process then stipulates a majority rule vote on whether Kavanaugh will be brought before the full Senate. The full Senate then makes a vote on whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh, which is going to pass absent at least two Republican defectors...which likely won't happen, but could.

So, the entire Democratic process that you seem to love is doing what it does and nothing in the Democratic process demands any further FBI investigating take place at this time. Since we are now talking about things that are the case, I don't see what your problem with any of this should be since you hold the, "Democratic process," in such high esteem.

The Constitution will likely never be amended again because that would first require the two sides to work together in a bipartisan effort, which is quite possibly something that will never occur again on any meaningful level.

Quote:

The current and Kavanaugh's job interview process demand transparency and has public participation, but it does not mean that the public has the right know on everything for national security, personal privacy, or other confidential matters.

I don't know what this sentence has to do with anything.

Quote:

With regarding to FBI investigation, the non-partisan and highly respected American Bar Association (ABA) who gave Kavanaugh an endorsement had called for FBI investigation.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652461140/american-bar-association-reportedly-wants-fbi-investigation-ahead-of-kavanaugh-v

"The American Bar Association says the Senate should not hold a confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court until the FBI has investigated sexual assault allegations against him that were made by Christine Blasey Ford and other women."

Yeah, and their calling for an FBI investigation matters about as much as me calling for one. Maybe I should call my mother and ask her if she would like for there to be an FBI investigation, she has as much authority to call for that as the ABA.

Quote:

I've stated previously in other post, you and I have vast different perspective on the democratic process, and now we can add the "FBI investigation" to our list different perspective that any regurgitation to these issues would be a complete waste of our time and the WOV bandwidth.

When I think of things that I would like the FBI to spend its money doing, investigating matters relating to the national security and pursuing investigations of crimes that are actually within their subject matter jurisdiction tend to top the list. I don't know that spending a ton of money to send the FBI chasing ghosts is a good use of resources.

On the other hand, this is exactly what the tax dollars that go to the Montgomery County Maryland Sheriff's Office are for. It's their job to investigate potential criminal acts that occur within their subject matter jurisdiction.

Quote: ams288

Jeff Flake is a YES on Kavanaugh.

If true this is telling. Flake HATES Trump, so he must be darned sure that Kavanaugh is the right man for the job.

Summary- I like Mission's general take on this whole mess.
I like Rx's counterpoints to Mission.

I can't say with any level of certainty that Kavanaugh did not grope the 15 year old 36 years ago. But this is what I can say. There is not nearly enough evidence for her to even win a civil suit against him, as the preponderance of evidence supports Kavanaugh. I think the greater good for society is served by not taking a totally uncorroborated allegation, where the only actual evidence refutes her account as the reason to not confirm him.

The Dem Presidential hopefuls, Booker and Harris, walk out of the meeting. Blumenthal too. Crybabies. (Not 100% sure on Booker)

Feinstein made a great statement. I do take issue with her saying she NOR HER STAFFERS leaked the Blasey Ford letter. She can only know that she did not leak it.

Quote: ams288

Jeff Flake is a YES on Kavanaugh.

There is a thing call revolving door, lobbying, other future personal/political ambitions, so his decision/vote may be influenced by his future political/personal ambitions, rather than by his conscience. Is he a person with strong principle?

His main concern now is his future earning/income and personal/political ambitions, and if he has to to kiss the racist, rapist, sexist, liar, con-artist Trump's ass and the GOP's arse he will do so without hesitation (case in point: Trump and Cruz are now buddy despite all the insulting things that Trump had said about Cruz and Cruz's wife).

Regardless of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, yesterday I saw a man who was panicky and emotionally unstable under pressure.

I don't want someone like that on the Supreme Court.

Quote: SOOPOO

Summary- I like Mission's general take on this whole mess.
I like Rx's counterpoints to Mission.

Oh, you didn't lose any respect for me for having an opinion? That's nice. Thanks!

Quote:

I can't say with any level of certainty that Kavanaugh did not grope the 15 year old 36 years ago. But this is what I can say. There is not nearly enough evidence for her to even win a civil suit against him, as the preponderance of evidence supports Kavanaugh. I think the greater good for society is served by not taking a totally uncorroborated allegation, where the only actual evidence refutes her account as the reason to not confirm him.

I agree with this 100%. To suggest that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed as a result of Blasey Ford's allegation is to suggest that the minimum evidentiary standard to block such confirmation is, "Someone making an allegation that is theoretically possible." That's what the totality of the evidence arises to on this one, an event that theoretically could have happened.

Quote:

Feinstein made a great statement. I do take issue with her saying she NOR HER STAFFERS leaked the Blasey Ford letter. She can only know that she did not leak it.

I agree with that about the staffers, but it will hardly be the first time a Senator lied or made a statement that they couldn't possibly know to be true, so I'm not worried about it.

Beyond that, I don't understand in her statement why she says Blasey Ford, "Should be believed," implying that Kavanaugh shouldn't. Based on what? Both of their statements prove the exact same amount about the alleged underlying event, which is nothing. Why, "Should," I believe either of them? Personally, I don't believe or disbelieve either of them, though I do think Kavanaugh was lying (for reason) about never being blackout drunk in his life.

Also, why should the presumption of innocence be something that only applies in court, but we are suggesting that a presumption of guilt (provided there is an accuser) should prevail in any other context? That makes no sense and is completely unfair. I'm not even saying that about Kavanaugh exclusively, really, I'm just worried that the notion of, "Presumption of guilt," is going to spill over into everything else including things that affect real people.

Quote: TigerWu

Regardless of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence, yesterday I saw a man who was panicky and emotionally unstable under pressure.

I don't want someone like that on the Supreme Court.

I think that's a fine observation to personally hold. I don't want him on the SCOTUS because he is a social conservative, but there's nothing that I can do about that.

Quote: 777

Is he a person with strong principle?

He's a U.S. Senator, so, no.

Quote:

His main concern now is his future earning/income and personal/political ambitions, and if he has to to kiss the racist, rapist, sexist, liar, con-artist Trump's ass and the GOP's arse he will do so without hesitation (case in point: Trump and Cruz are now buddy despite all the insulting things that Trump had said about Cruz and Cruz's wife).

I don't know what you expect anyone to say about Cruz. My opinion of Cruz is that if an art teacher said, "I want you to take a big, fat smelly turd and imagine it as a human being, now draw what you imagine," the result would be a nearly perfect rendering of Ted Cruz if the art student is talented. Yuck. He's more gross than even that Avenatti...and much harder to look at. Listening to Ted Cruz speak makes me want to put straight bleach on a Q-Tip and clean my ears out. Seeing his face on the TV makes me envy the blind. He's just gross.