Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?

Quote: SOOPOO

To me Blasey Ford is just not believable. Her remembering that she had exactly one beer but not remembering how she got home is the most obvious lie of this whole fiasco. Exactly what her motive for her actions are we will never know.

The above does not mean that Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking, sexual activities, etc...

I really don’t know. None of us do. Those claiming that they know 100% that she is lying are liars themselves.

IMO there was more than enough disqualifying behavior beyond Ford’s accusation.

There is ZERO benefit to make a false rape accusation. Going through the legal system, no matter what “side” of something you are on, is absolute hell. There are no winners.

Despite what our alt-right friends want you to believe, false rape accusations extremely rare. They do happen, but the idea that there is an epidemic, that there is some sort of concerted effort to to ruin men’s lives with false accusations is a horse sh*t argument. It’s gaslighting at it’s worst, and a sad attempt to flip the victim card around.

The Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh sheep of the world are going to think it’s a deep state liberal conspiracy to matter what. But they’re so quick to believe that garbage without a shred of evidence, but demand extraordinary high levels of proof for anything else that doesn’t fit their gaslit narrative.

Quote: AxelWolf

beachbumbabs and friends.


Christine Blasey Ford = a F****** C#N! LIAR.

Admit it.

And let's move on.


If you still want to have your #metoo blinders on and not admit the injustices of faults allegations against Kavanaugh(and other innocent men), then we have to lose all respect for all your emotional political views.

She didn't lie.

Your bullying people over someone getting assaulted is disgusting. As is a lot of the gloating and mocking in this thread. Speaking of moving on, you should shut up about this and try it.

Funny how everybody believes guys 40 years later after their priest supposedly molested them, but you all throw this kind of mud at a woman who comes forward.

My assault/rape/impregnation was 41 years ago, this forum last month was the first time I publicly disclosed it, in the hopes that at least a few of you would realize it happens everywhere, then and now. You going to call me a liar just because i didn't talk about it then because it was painful, so shameful my mother didn't want my father to know, and no one ever talked about such things?

Quote: beachbumbabs

She didn't lie.

This is a joke, right? You actually think you KNOW she didn't lie? Puhhlease!!!!! I find it incredible that someone can claim they remember that they drank EXACTLY one beer on a night they were assaulted but have no recollection about how they got home, who drove her, etc.....
Your painful story, as opposed to hers, is filled with all the details one would expect of a truthful allegation.

Is it possible she is telling the truth.... yes.... anything is possible, but it is not likely.

Quote: beachbumbabs

She didn't lie.

Matter of opinion. Many of us do not believe her. At the least her story is full of holes.

Quote:

Your bullying people over someone getting assaulted is disgusting. As is a lot of the gloating and mocking in this thread. Speaking of moving on, you should shut up about this and try it.

When the liberals on this board behave in a more civil manner I can assure you us on the right will as well.

i woke up early so enjoy this

Every man accused of sexual assault deserves to be believed if he says that he's innocent.

A man's rights don't end where your feelings begin.

Quote: SOOPOO

To me Blasey Ford is just not believable. Her remembering that she had exactly one beer but not remembering how she got home is the most obvious lie of this whole fiasco. Exactly what her motive for her actions are we will never know.

The above does not mean that Kavanaugh did not lie about his drinking, sexual activities, etc...

As I mentioned earlier, the thing that bothers me the most is Ford's description of the actions she took immediately after the alleged event. Ford, believing that there was an attempt to rape her and inadvertently be killed, escapes from the house ABANDONING her friend, leaving her ALONE with killer/rapists , to possibly suffer the same fate. Her best friend could be in the house being raped, yet Ford says NOTHING.

Does anybody else wonder why the same group that says Ford "has to be believed" attacked Paula Jones for telling her story?

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

Quote: Fleaswatter

As I mentioned earlier, the thing that bothers me the most is Ford's description of the actions she took immediately after the alleged event. Ford, believing that there was an attempt to rape her and inadvertently be killed, escapes from the house ABANDONING her friend, leaving her ALONE with killer/rapists , to possibly suffer the same fate. Her best friend could be in the house being raped, yet Ford says NOTHING.

Exactly. Fortunately some of us are not as suggestible as others and could see right through the bad act and farce.

Quote: beachbumbabs

She didn't lie.

Your bullying people over someone getting assaulted is disgusting. As is a lot of the gloating and mocking in this thread. Speaking of moving on, you should shut up about this and try it.

Funny how everybody believes guys 40 years later after their priest supposedly molested them, but you all throw this kind of mud at a woman who comes forward.

My assault/rape/impregnation was 41 years ago, this forum last month was the first time I publicly disclosed it, in the hopes that at least a few of you would realize it happens everywhere, then and now. You going to call me a liar just because i didn't talk about it then because it was painful, so shameful my mother didn't want my father to know, and no one ever talked about such things?

YES SHE DID!!!! LOCK HER UP!!!!

I'm not suddenly gloating, I thought this stank all to high heaven from the get-go and I said so.

In some of the more well-known cases about molester priest, the accusers had a little more evidence than that witch Ford was able to conjure up. In most cases, the priests had a long history of molesting. The church went way above and beyond the call of fruity to cover it up. I noticed you said "supposedly molested" Are you indicating you don't, and we shouldn't believe the allegations? At least they knew what church it happened at, well perhaps not, since I'm sure the kiddies were forced to drink more than one glass of wine.

Obviously, I'm sorry that happened to you, and YES I believe you. I don't think you have an agenda and motivation like Ford does.

Quote: GamerFreak

There is pretty much ZERO benefit to make a false rape accusation. Going through the legal system, no matter what “side” of something you are on, is absolute hell. There are no winners.

Despite what our alt-right friends want you to believe, false rape accusations extremely rare. They do happen, but the idea that there is an epidemic, that there is some sort of concerted effort to to ruin men’s lives with false accusations is a horse sh*t argument. It’s gaslighting at it’s worst, and a sad attempt to flip the victim card around.

The Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh sheep of the world are going to think it’s a deep state liberal conspiracy to matter what. But they’re so quick to believe that garbage without a shred of evidence, but demand extraordinary high levels of proof for anything else that doesn’t fit their gaslit narrative.

I'm going to agree with you that false rape accusations are rare, but that doesn't mean that a false rape allegation should be in any way acceptable. Not just when it comes to rape, but really any crime, I'm the type that I would rather tip the scales (knowing they won't be perfect) such that a couple of guilty people walk rather than any innocent people suffer repercussions. To me, that's what the tenet of, "Innocent until proven guilty," is. You have to start from a position of innocence and then be convinced that they are guilty.

As far as conspiracies are concerned, I would say that the Democrats could thank their boy Avenatti for that one. Turns out he was in Cincinnati last night, opposite side of the state from where I'm at right now, but I thought I caught a faint whiff of sewage in the air.

The fact is that I think had Avenatti not come out with his nonsense, then Collins & Manchin may very well have voted against Kavanaugh who would look like a nutjob ranting about a Democratic conspiracy re: the claims of Blasey Ford and Ramirez. The only thing that Avenatti pulled off was making actually look like it could be a Democratic hit job. Once again, I'm not holding the Democrats responsible for the actions of two people, (Avenatti and Swetnick) but they might do well just to tell Avenatti to go the hell away until his failed Democratic Primary run in 2020.

The Democrats also don't help themselves when they scream, "Shame, shame, shame!!!" at Manchin, or, "Shame on you!!!" when he is trying to do press. I couldn't even hear what homeboy was saying in the video. I also don't think hysterically screaming at Senators as they get on the elevator is a great optic, either.

They should really just stop letting people into the Capitol building. If I'm being honest, I wouldn't be shocked if some/all of these screamers were Republican plants to make the Democrats look bad. It's really hard to tell. That's not to say that all Democrats do an insufficient job of making themselves look bad, many are pretty good at it.

My advice for Democrats would be that anyone voting in favor of Kavanaugh is doing so because there is insufficient proof as to the Blasey Ford and Ramirez allegations in the eyes of those voting for him. In my opinion, they feel that way because there is, in my opinion, insufficient proof.

My understanding is that the FBI investigation was limited to looking for direct evidence of, "Credible claims," which would include Blasey Ford and Ramirez. They questioned 10/11 sought after witnesses to these events and the result was zero corroboration. I think it's fair to say you can prove anything else you want to about the guy, that he was a heavy drinker/partyer, whatever, but you can't prove that those two events happened.

Quote: beachbumbabs

She didn't lie.

Your bullying people over someone getting assaulted is disgusting. As is a lot of the gloating and mocking in this thread. Speaking of moving on, you should shut up about this and try it.

Yeah, if this were an NFL game, and myself a ref, I'd probably throw a flag for Excessive Celebration.

Quote:

Funny how everybody believes guys 40 years later after their priest supposedly molested them, but you all throw this kind of mud at a woman who comes forward.

My assault/rape/impregnation was 41 years ago, this forum last month was the first time I publicly disclosed it, in the hopes that at least a few of you would realize it happens everywhere, then and now. You going to call me a liar just because i didn't talk about it then because it was painful, so shameful my mother didn't want my father to know, and no one ever talked about such things?

To the first sentence, you're acting like there is actually some kind of proof in the Blasey Ford case. There's not. Nobody in the case of either herself or Ramirez can recall the event taking place, and the witness who one would expect to be most favorable to Blasey Ford, doesn't even recall a party in which she and Kavanaugh were both present.

Here's the difference with yours to your second paragraph:

1.) Yours is not a national case that involves a Supreme Court nominee. Therefore, all of the memes, people saying this that or the other...whatever...it's part of a national story. Right or wrong, people talk and joke about national stories. SNL's open made fun of Kavanaugh, but given the nature of what they were making fun of Kavanaugh for, it's indirectly making fun of what allegedly happened to Blasey Ford.

2.) It may be the first time you publicly discussed it, but it's not like you're going into that guy's place of employment (assuming he is still alive) and talking about it happening. You're making an anonymousish (some people on the board know your real name, etc.) on a message board.

3.) That was a rape that actually took place. Depending on the particulars, even assuming what Blasey Ford says is true, it might not even be sufficient to bring attempted rape charges had she reported it at the time. It might have been a lesser charge.

4.) You have 150x the corroborating evidence that Blasey Ford does. As long as your Mom is alive, you have a witness who can attest that you told them about it reasonably close to the time at which it happened. Not to mention the fact that she took you to get the abortion. Like it or not, Blasey Ford doesn't even have one witness who puts her and Kavanaugh at the same party.

Other Stuff

Although, in terms of my opinion that we would all ideally be friends here on the forum to some extent, I think maybe we would do well to tone it down a bit with one another.

Personally, it seems that there are two extremes on this issue which are:

I believe Blasey Ford 100%------------------------Blasey Ford is lying

But, it's important to know that there are a lot of possibilities between those two things. Many of those possibilities could be such that both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh believe they are telling the truth. In fact, I recall you (BBB) even saying that it might not even be an event worth remembering from Kavanaugh's perspective.

I've had at least one theory for what could have happened that I consider pretty reasonable (and neither Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh would necessarily be lying) that also seems like a reasonably common thing to have happen. After that, it's just a matter of perspective. I haven't shared that theory specifically because of how politically charged this whole thing has been and figuring that I would just p!$$ off both sides. I don't think 95% of the people from either side cares about what is or could be true, they just want the narrative to support their version of what they think is true.

Quote: AxelWolf

YES SHE DID!!!! LOCK HER UP!!!!

I'm not suddenly gloating, I thought this stank all to high heaven from the get-go and I said so.

In some of the more well-known cases about molester priest, the accusers had a little more evidence than that witch Ford was able to conjure up. In most cases, the priests had a long history of molesting. The church went way above and beyond the call of fruity to cover it up. I noticed you said "supposedly molested" Are you indicating you don't, and we shouldn't believe the allegations? At least they knew what church it happened at, well perhaps not, since I'm sure the kiddies were forced to drink more than one glass of wine.

Obviously, I'm sorry that happened to you, and YES I believe you. I don't think you have an agenda and motivation like Ford does.

That's better, thanks. She's still not a witch. A better word would have been "allegedly", since unless.the priest confessed, it would be even more private than the Devil's Triangle those two were trying to score.

I swear to you, Axel, she was put into this position unwillingly, step by step. She did not have an agenda to start except to speak up, and got forced into the spotlight by a lot of ham-handed people who DID have agendas.

No question some people desperate to stop this confirmation used and abused her. But she's not the villain.

And this didn't happen in a vacuum. She was around this crowd for years, dated his close friend, saw the parties, the drinking, the aggression. There were dozens of friends, his yearbook entries, other information that all verified his over-drinking and how he changed.

The FBI via Don McGahn, the WH Chief Counsel, was not allowed to interview most of those people. Who knows whether their testimony was accusatory or exonerating - they weren't interviewed. But some of them are coming forward in the media, which is unsatisfactory at this point. It's gotten to where they all would need to be deposed under oath to take any of it seriously.

But I would think her point in coming forward was she expected they would take her seriously, ask the other people in their crowd, get some more stories of who he was then (whether he's grown up or not), and make an informed decision about him. That process was constrained and thwarted several times, so nobody really knows the overall truth at this point. But everybody thinks they do.

As I said before, we're all being manipulated in this. The way they did the FBI report, McConnell could stand there and claim that "the FBI report did not collaborate her claims". Well, duh.

If nothing else, I assume more students will be trying to sign up for her as an instructor in the future, if for morbid curiosity if for no other reason.

Just as Kavanaugh, like Thomas, will always have an asterisk after his name.

Apt.

Quote: Mission146

I'm going to agree with you that false rape accusations are rare, but that doesn't mean that a false rape allegation should be in any way acceptable. Not just when it comes to rape, but really any crime, I'm the type that I would rather tip the scales (knowing they won't be perfect) such that a couple of guilty people walk rather than any innocent people suffer repercussions. To me, that's what the tenet of, "Innocent until proven guilty," is. You have to start from a position of innocence and then be convinced that they are guilty.

Absolutely, and my point wasn't to suggest that there shouldn't be due process. Provably false accusers (again with due process) should also be put in jail.

My point was, that there's this narrative coming from Trump and the alt-right (and parroted by EB) that "This is a scary time to be a white male in America". And that is just beyond ridiculous.

Quote: beachbumbabs

That's better, thanks. She's still not a witch. A better word would have been "allegedly", since unless.the priest confessed, it would be even more private than the Devil's Triangle those two were trying to score.

I think he meant, "That which Ford was able to conjure up."

Quote:

I swear to you, Axel, she was put into this position unwillingly, step by step. She did not have an agenda to start except to speak up, and got forced into the spotlight by a lot of ham-handed people who DID have agendas.

I return to my question: Did she really write the letter to Feinstein thinking she wouldn't be going public? Why write the letter? To convince Feinstein not to vote for the guy who she already was not going to vote for?

Instead of having an allegation with zero proof, now you would have an anonymous allegation with zero proof? Even with Blasey Ford's testimony, it's insufficient to convince all the necessary people of Kavanaugh's guilt, what would you expect to happen if it was just an anonymous allegation made known by Feinstein? Everyone would (rightly) laugh it off. I can say that (a credible person) said (allegation) but wished to remain anonymous all I want to.

Honestly, if she didn't fully well expect to go public, what was the purpose of writing the letter? It makes no sense.

I just know anytime that I read a news piece and I see the word, "Anonymous source," I can discount how seriously I take it by roughly 99.9%.

Quote:

No question some people desperate to stop this confirmation used and abused her. But she's not the villain.

And this didn't happen in a vacuum. She was around this crowd for years, dated his close friend, saw the parties, the drinking, the aggression. There were dozens of friends, his yearbook entries, other information that all verified his over-drinking and how he changed.

Yeah, she dated his friend, who was listed at being at the July 1st party that everyone was so excited about, except she never mentioned the friend being there.

I only partially agree with you about the other stuff. I don't know what sort of world where all the stuff you're talking about should constitute evidence of any kind. Just about anybody in High School could theoretically make an allegation against me and be like, "He was at a party with J---, M--- and C----," during the Summer of 2001. Okay. So what? Everyone in the High School would pretty much know that I ran around with those three guys and we'd have been at several parties together during the Summer of 2001. The hell does that prove?

Oh, Blasey Ford knew he worked at a Safeway. So what? I worked at a grocery store when I was in High School and I occasionally get people who come up and say hi to me who remember seeing me at the store and at the high school. We never really hung out outside of those two places, they just remember seeing me at both.

Quote:

The FBI via Don McGahn, the WH Chief Counsel, was not allowed to interview most of those people. Who knows whether their testimony was accusatory or exonerating - they weren't interviewed. But some of them are coming forward in the media, which is unsatisfactory at this point. It's gotten to where they all would need to be deposed under oath to take any of it seriously.

The FBI was allowed to interview witnesses that had been named by the two accusers, Blasey Ford and Ramirez, as being present during the events in question. Zero such witnesses corroborated their accounts.

Are we supposed to use everyone that the accusers and accused have ever met in their entire lives as character witnesses and then make a judgment based upon that? Nonsense.

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, if this were an NFL game, and myself a ref, I'd probably throw a flag for Excessive Celebration.

Celebrating is a bit of an overstatement, not much to calibrate knowing an innocent guys reputation has been severely tarnished by evil lies. Hasn't he been known to help advocate for women in the workplace and whatnot? I hope he learns his lesson and he rethinks hiring or working with women from now on if he can avoid it. Anyone who believes Ford's allegations should also not want him around women.

I didn't/don't care if Kavanaugh was confirmed(I don't agree with some of his views). I just dont like the fact that some evil liar can derail someone's life and career on a whim.


p.s. I did mean WITCH as to why I use the word conjure.

Quote: gamerfreak

My point was, that there's this narrative coming from Trump and the alt-right (and parroted by EB) that "This is a scary time to be a white male in America". And that is just beyond ridiculous.

You should read Twitter sometime if you haven't. I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I'll put it this way: If my fiance' and I ever break up, I'll never have sex with someone again without a notarized certificate that says we both consent to having sex with one another. I'll also not be the one to initiate any flirting, or anything along those lines. I also don't make any light-hearted jokes that could even theoretically be misconstrued as sexually charged.

To be honest, I basically don't speak to women (unless they are in some sort of customer service role) unless they speak to me first, but I'm fine with that.

Anyway, I don't think there's any kind of a huge conspiracy against white guys, or whatever. I just think guys, in general, should be extremely cautious in their behavior with women right now. Arguably, we always should have been.

Mission.

Too long to quote you, but it's right above.

Errata. My mom didn't take me for the abortion. She was less than no help. In fact, she never spoke of it again until I threw it at her this week when she said something awful about Dr. Ford. She was ashamed of me for allowing myself to be in a position where I got raped.

I still think it's perfectly understandable that he has no memory of this pareticular event. I've said that not once, but several times. So I think it's true he has no memory of it.

I do think he lied numerous times within his testimony, trying to minimize his drinking and partying, about him not being aggressive and inappropriate, about the sexual terms in the yearbook and the Renata stuff. But that's what I think is an informed opinion based on a lot of stuff that never became official evidence or testimony.

The bigger issue is still that he's willing to lie under oath (not just about this), that he's self-testified to being extremely partisan, and that he apparently can't exhibit judicial restraint under pressure.

It's important that over 1600 law professors from every law school in this country have urged his withdrawal. That the American Bar Association has rescinded their endorsement. And that he has the least support, both public and professional, in more than 30 years.

He is the wrong guy. His confirmation taints every 5-4 decision where he's in the majority for decades to come. SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and decide on the facts of the case each time. He's set to make that impossible, for people to accept SCOTUS decisions as fair, which damages the entire judicial branch of the government.

Find someone else.

Quote: AxelWolf

Celebrating is a bit of an overstatement, not much to calibrate knowing an innocent guys reputation has been severely tarnished by evil lies. Hasn't he been known to help advocate for women in the workplace and whatnot? I hope he learns his lesson and he rethinks hiring or working with women from now on if he can avoid it. Anyone who believes Ford's allegations should also not want him around women.

I didn't/don't care if Kavanaugh was confirmed(I don't agree with some of his views). I just dont like the fact that some evil liar can derail someone's life and career on a whim.


p.s. I did mean WITCH as to why I use the word conjure.

Our disconnect on this one is that you assume Blasey Ford is a liar and I don't. Please continue your victory lap.

Don't get me wrong, this is basically the ultimate result that I think is fair because there is no proof of any sexual assault allegations against him. I understand there were other reasons people suggested to keep him off the SCOTUS unrelated to this but:

1. I don't know much about them.

2. Collins really seemed to be the only person to address them recently.

3. Had those reasons been sufficient in and of themselves, none of this would have happened in the first place.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Errata. My mom didn't take me for the abortion. She was less than no help. In fact, she never spoke of it again until I threw it at her this week when she said something awful about Dr. Ford. She was ashamed of me for allowing myself to be in a position where I got raped.

My mistake, you still have 100x the corroborating evidence that Blasey Ford does provided that your Mom at least remembers you telling her about it around the time that it happened. Not to mention other people you may have told. The closest to the event that Blasey Ford has is thirty years after the fact she told someone. I'm sorry, but right or wrong, that's going to hurt a person's case.

Quote:

I still think it's perfectly understandable that he has no memory of this pareticular event. I've said that not once, but several times. So I think it's true he has no memory of it.

I do think he lied numerous times within his testimony, trying to minimize his drinking and partying, about him not being aggressive and inappropriate, about the sexual terms in the yearbook and the Renata stuff. But that's what I think is an informed opinion based on a lot of stuff that never became official evidence or testimony.

We agree that it's reasonable he has no memory of it, and like I said, one of my theories is that it is both less than what it actually was from his perspective and more than it actually was from her perspective. Once again, I didn't want to get very specific (though it would be a common thing to happen) because that could well p!$$ off both sides. I don't think most people are interested in the truth of Blasey Ford's allegations, they're just interested in anything that supports what they think the truth should be.

I agree that he quite probably lied to minimize the drinking and partying, but when you have people who are going to use excessive drinking as de facto proof of attempted rape...let's just say I would lie too! They were really trying to paint him into a corner to satisfy their burden of proof, which was, "Almost nothing." Anyone looking at it reasonably would say that drinking to the point of blackout does exactly zero to prove Blasey Ford's specific claims, but that's not the way anybody would be looking at it.

As far as the yearbook terms, again, they're going to use something in his yearbook as definitive proof of something that is, at absolute best, only tangentially related. Worst case scenario for them, it's not related at all.

His yearbook says, "Devil's Triangle," = Proof that he tried to rape someone.

I think there's a little bit of a disconnect there.

Quote:

The bigger issue is still that he's willing to lie under oath (not just about this), that he's self-testified to being extremely partisan, and that he apparently can't exhibit judicial restraint under pressure.

Meh. They're all partisan. If they weren't, the President/Senate wouldn't really care who was on the SCOTUS all that much. There's nothing that's not partisan about the SCOTUS process anymore and probably never will be again. You saw it with Garland, you saw it with Gorsuch only getting confirmed by what was technically a narrow margin basically directly along party lines with only three exceptions. Two of those three exceptions in states that favored Republicans extremely in the Presidential Election...so you could make an argument that those were more self-preservation than truly bipartisan.

Anyway, the SCOTUS process and the SCOTUS itself will probably never be bipartisan again and I think both sides hold some responsibility in that.

Quote:

It's important that over 1600 law professors from every law school in this country have urged his withdrawal. That the American Bar Association has rescinded their endorsement. And that he has the least support, both public and professional, in more than 30 years.

He is the wrong guy. His confirmation taints every 5-4 decision where he's in the majority for decades to come. SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and decide on the facts of the case each time. He's set to make that impossible, for people to accept SCOTUS decisions as fair, which damages the entire judicial branch of the government.

Find someone else.

I don't know anything about law professors. I do know that professors and educators, in general, tend to lean Liberal. The American Bar Association did what was best for the American Bar Association from a public opinion standpoint.

How much public support he has is only relevant if it were the public deciding whether or not he gets on the court. The Democrats tried to use public pressure to decide that and failed. Again, the lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS is fundamentally flawed as well as the fact that it's not a public vote, but neither of those things will ever change. The first of those two things (lifetime) is really more of a problem than the second.

It doesn't matter what his confirmation taints or does not taint. The SCOTUS' decisions will stand and the SCOTUS Justices can effectively Legislate from the bench. It's never been any different. Welcome to America. The #ConstitutionSucks. The SCOTUS has probably never been impartial, taken as a whole, but it certainly ceased to be impartial well before Kavanaugh's nomination.

Again, if it were impartial, Presidents wouldn't really care who was on the SCOTUS provided they met the judicial requirements. The SCOTUS, by design, is not impartial.

Quote: SOOPOO

To me Blasey Ford is just not believable. Her remembering that she had exactly one beer

The one beer is the crux of the
whole thing. I'm sure her lawyer
thought it up. It sets the stage
for the whole tale. She wasn't
drunk, she was stone cold sober and
the guys were drunk. She remembers
that with extreme clarity, he lawyer
told her to say. Such a joke..

Quote: gamerfreak

My point was, that there's this narrative coming from Trump and the alt-right (and parroted by EB) that "This is a scary time to be a white male in America". And that is just beyond ridiculous.

It is true, not ridiculous. White males are the only group the PC crowd allows if not encourages racist policies against. The media automatically takes the side of the woman or the minority against a white male. White male history being re-written right before your eyes. And about 1/3 of the white males out there help in their own destruction.

Quote: Mission146

I'm going to agree with you that false rape accusations are rare,

But they aren't rare at all. Look at
all the women busted recently by
cops wearing body cameras. He
gives a woman a ticket, she accepts
it politely, then screams sexual assault,
not knowing the cop is wearing a camera.
Uh oh.

Women have always made false
accusations, that's why in the past the
police were always skeptical, they
saw it all the time. It got so bad they
had to invent rape kits to weed out the
liars. My own sister, now in her 60's,
has made up a false memory of being
molested by my dad. It's beyond ridiculous.
She has no details, but she 'remembers' it.
She has a screw loose, that's why I haven't
seen her in 40 years.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Mission.

Too long to quote you, but it's right above.

Errata. My mom didn't take me for the abortion. She was less than no help. In fact, she never spoke of it again until I threw it at her this week when she said something awful about Dr. Ford. She was ashamed of me for allowing myself to be in a position where I got raped.

I still think it's perfectly understandable that he has no memory of this pareticular event. I've said that not once, but several times. So I think it's true he has no memory of it.

I do think he lied numerous times within his testimony, trying to minimize his drinking and partying, about him not being aggressive and inappropriate, about the sexual terms in the yearbook and the Renata stuff. But that's what I think is an informed opinion based on a lot of stuff that never became official evidence or testimony.

The bigger issue is still that he's willing to lie under oath (not just about this), that he's self-testified to being extremely partisan, and that he apparently can't exhibit judicial restraint under pressure.

It's important that over 1600 law professors from every law school in this country have urged his withdrawal. That the American Bar Association has rescinded their endorsement. And that he has the least support, both public and professional, in more than 30 years.

He is the wrong guy. His confirmation taints every 5-4 decision where he's in the majority for decades to come. SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and decide on the facts of the case each time. He's set to make that impossible, for people to accept SCOTUS decisions as fair, which damages the entire judicial branch of the government.

Find someone else.

I'm sad to hear about this story and this recent interaction between you and your mother. You deserve better than that.

And I agree, it's pretty clear to me he's willing to lie under oath. Pretty sure our President has no problem with it either.

Quote: Mission146

I
As far as conspiracies are concerned, I would say that the Democrats could thank their boy Avenatti for that one. Turns out he was in Cincinnati last night, opposite side of the state from where I'm at right now, but I thought I caught a faint whiff of sewage in the air.

Or DiCarlos cleaning their grease trap.

Quote: Mission146

I think he meant, "That which Ford was able to conjure up."



I return to my question: Did she really write the letter to Feinstein thinking she wouldn't be going public? Why write the letter? To convince Feinstein not to vote for the guy who she already was not going to vote for?

Instead of having an allegation with zero proof, now you would have an anonymous allegation with zero proof? Even with Blasey Ford's testimony, it's insufficient to convince all the necessary people of Kavanaugh's guilt, what would you expect to happen if it was just an anonymous allegation made known by Feinstein? Everyone would (rightly) laugh it off. I can say that (a credible person) said (allegation) but wished to remain anonymous all I want to.

Honestly, if she didn't fully well expect to go public, what was the purpose of writing the letter? It makes no sense.

She wanted to derail the nomination, we can be sure of that. She might have hoped to be a "Jane Doe" accuser, name and face redacted. Do you remember that woman that accused one of the Kennedy's in the early 1990s? Had a dot over her face on TV. I will say it was possible she hoped it would at most go that route. The most likely thing is she thought he would withdraw or Trump would drop him at the first whiff of the letter. But they have played that card so much that the GOP has gotten some backbone.

The silly season got crazy. The guy drank a lot in college? Who on earth cares. The standard is now that drinking and light drug use is permissible. And should we really care about a vague claim from high school? This has started us down a very dangerous path. Good men like Kavanaugh are going to prefer to just make some real money in the private sector.

Quote: EvenBob

Women have always made false
accusations, that's why in the past the
police were always skeptical, they
saw it all the time. It got so bad they
had to invent rape kits to weed out the
liars. My own sister, now in her 60's,
has made up a false memory of being
molested by my dad. It's beyond ridiculous.
She has no details, but she 'remembers' it.
She has a screw loose, that's why I haven't
seen her in 40 years.

You have a very unique opinion of what the purpose of a rape kit is.

I wouldn't know anything about your sister, but I do know that being molested as a child often results in a person later having a, "Screw loose."

Quote: EvenBob

But they aren't rare at all. Look at
all the women busted recently by
cops wearing body cameras. He
gives a woman a ticket, she accepts
it politely, then screams sexual assault,
not knowing the cop is wearing a camera.
Uh oh.

Women have always made false
accusations, that's why in the past the
police were always skeptical, they
saw it all the time. It got so bad they
had to invent rape kits to weed out the
liars.

Remember all the "rape stories" after Katrina. The ones that never happened? Ford just made me doubt future claims by women everywhere.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is true, not ridiculous. White males are the only group the PC crowd allows if not encourages racist policies against. The media automatically takes the side of the woman or the minority against a white male. White male history being re-written right before your eyes. And about 1/3 of the white males out there help in their own destruction.

I don't know that the greater media always stands against white men as a matter of policy, but idiots such as this one:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/5/womens-march-leader-sarsour-launches-racial-attack/

Are certainly out there helping the case that you are trying to make.

She's actually trying to make it a racial issue! The fact that white Susan Collins brought up, "Innocent until proven guilty," in her remarks on the Senate floor in referring to an allegation against a white man, made by a white woman is somehow a racial thing. She honestly said that Susan Collins' remarks are indicative of white supremacy.

She's also the sort of person that, in my opinion, comes to mind even in some Moderates when they hear the word, "Liberal." People like this Linda Sarsour make it really, really difficult to self-identify as a liberal...at least for me. I don't want anybody thinking I'm in political lockstep with this idiot.

So, while I generally do not agree with your point of view on this one, I'd be remiss not to admit that there are such PC-Crowd people out there.

Quote: AZDuffman

Or DiCarlos cleaning their grease trap.

You don't like DiCarlos? I think it's okay, definitely not my favorite.

Quote:

She wanted to derail the nomination, we can be sure of that. She might have hoped to be a "Jane Doe" accuser, name and face redacted. Do you remember that woman that accused one of the Kennedy's in the early 1990s? Had a dot over her face on TV. I will say it was possible she hoped it would at most go that route. The most likely thing is she thought he would withdraw or Trump would drop him at the first whiff of the letter. But they have played that card so much that the GOP has gotten some backbone.

The silly season got crazy. The guy drank a lot in college? Who on earth cares. The standard is now that drinking and light drug use is permissible. And should we really care about a vague claim from high school? This has started us down a very dangerous path. Good men like Kavanaugh are going to prefer to just make some real money in the private sector.

I'm not going to speculate other than to say I don't know what possible purpose writing the letter could have unless the person expected to, quite probably, end up coming out with it. I mean, you could just write the letter anonymously by not signing it if that's the case, could you not? I write quasi-anonymously on the sites by using a pseudonym. Anybody who posts here does so anonymously (with exceptions) by way of having a handle.

As far as the early-90's go, no, I do not remember that. I was born in late 1983.

As far as drinking a lot, I understand why he would lie about it. The mere act of drinking heavily does not support Blasey Ford's specific claim, but people would certainly act like it does.

Quote: Mission146

You have a very unique opinion of what the purpose of a rape kit is.

I do, really?

A rape kit—also known as a sexual assault kit (SAK), a sexual assault forensic evidence (SAFE) kit, a sexual assault evidence collection kit (SAECK), a sexual offense evidence collection (SOEC) kit, or a physical evidence recovery kit

The word 'evidence' used 4 times in the definition.
That's why it was invented, to find evidence that
a rape had been committed. What did you think it
was for, if not evidence.

Quote: EvenBob

I do, really?

A rape kit—also known as a sexual assault kit (SAK), a sexual assault forensic evidence (SAFE) kit, a sexual assault evidence collection kit (SAECK), a sexual offense evidence collection (SOEC) kit, or a physical evidence recovery kit

The word 'evidence' used 4 times in the definition.
That's why it was invented, to find evidence that
a rape had been committed. What did you think it
was for, if not evidence.

You said previously, in part:

Quote:

It got so bad they
had to invent rape kits to weed out the
liars.

They're not to weed out the liars, they are so people who are telling the truth can prove their cases against the rapist/attempted rapist. That's what you gather evidence for, so you can affirmatively prove a case.

The problem that I have with people like Ford and the #Meetoo movement is these people have too much power that they simply have not earned or deserve.
The are prosecutors, judge, and jury.

Ford simply did NOT deserve to be heard by the Senate and she should not have been allowed to even testify.
She did not earn that right because...

1. She did not first present her accusations or file a police report with the local police.
2. More than 30 years had past.
3. There were no witnesses to back up her story.
4. She could not recount when, where, or really even who was responsible.

Just watched it live. Some congresswoman said
'we now have two sexual predators on the bench.'
What an idiot..

Quote: Mission146

they are so people who are telling the truth can prove their cases .

And in the process, weed out the
liars. How many have gone thru
it and we find out they weren't
raped at all. Many.

These women need to be prosecuted for perjury. The witch hunts must stop. These women do not deserve this power.

Quote: Keyser

The problem that I have with people like Ford and the #Meetoo movement is these people have too much power that they simply have not earned or deserve.
The are prosecutors, judge, and jury.

Ford simply did NOT deserve to be heard by the Senate and she should not have been allowed to even testify.
She did not earn that right because...

1. She did not first present her accusations or file a police report with the local police.
2. More than 30 years had past.
3. There were no witnesses to back up her story.
4. She could not recount when, where, or really even who was responsible.

I will agree with your first paragraph to the extent that there are certainly people out there who had Kavanaugh (as well as others, in other cases) pegged as guilty of sexual assault or attempted rape prior to a word of testimony being uttered by either party. I think that there should be a difference between #IBelieveHer and #He'sAutomaticallyGuilty.

I disagree that Ford did not deserve to be heard and should not have been allowed to testify because from a pragmatic standpoint for the Republicans, you already have people arguing that the additional FBI investigation didn't go far enough, so could you imagine had they not let her testify at all? I feel pretty confident that Collins would have been a no, and probably Manchin, had Blasey Ford not been allowed to testify at all.

As far as your list, here are my responses:

1.) Agreed.

2.) I disagree, but that is why I think such an accusation should not be made directly against a person without actual proof. It is for this reason that the statute of limitations for a thing like this exists. I also don't think that a defamation case would succeed because he would likely have to be able to prove that it didn't happen for such a case to be successful...which is nearly impossible.

So, I think the passage of time only matters because the statute of limitations was up. Had the statute of limitations not been up, then any claims would have been best made to the County Sheriff's Department.

3.) She was technically called upon to testify in spite of the fact that none of her witnesses corroborate her allegations. It's not like she demanded to testify and they acquiesced. Again, the optic of her not being called upon to testify would have been really bad for the Republicans.

4.) She seemed to recount the who well-enough. I don't know how you can say she didn't have a who.

I agree that not having a when or where to any specific degree made her case not only difficult to prove, but perhaps just as importantly, made it infinitely more difficult to theoretically disprove. With a specific date, Kavanaugh could theoretically have an alibi. With a specific place, Kavanaugh could theoretically have a witness who recalls Blasey Ford NOT being at the party in question or at least testifying that he/she believes Blasey Ford was not there.

---

Anyway, it wouldn't satisfy any standard of proof that I would have and if it were me deciding whether or not Kavanaugh should be on the SCOTUS, this whole thing would be a non-factor. That's not to say I wouldn't keep him off for other reasons, beyond this whole thing, I don't really know a lot about it.

In my case, I've basically succeeded in irritating everyone, as far as I can tell. Some people on the left are upset that I think people should be able to prove accusations if they are going to be used against a person without proof, decades after the fact, after the statute of limitations is up with no police report ever filed...etc...etc...etc

On the other side, I think some people on the right are irritated that I don't support their position that Blasey Ford is a liar or that I somehow don't hold my position fervently enough.

Anyway, 50-48, it's done. Onto the next thing, I suppose.

Quote: EvenBob

And in the process, weed out the
liars. How many have gone thru
it and we find out they weren't
raped at all. Many.

I don't know, I don't have the numbers. I don't think that's why they were invented, though. They were invented for the purpose of evidence-gathering, in general, not to prove people are lying. Don't people have to agree to be subjected to a rape test? This seems to think so:

https://www.ovcttac.gov/saneguide/identifying-essential-components-of-a-sane-program/informed-consent-and-patient-confidentiality/

In any event, I don't think I would agree to such a test if I did not at least believe that a sexual crime of some kind happened to me. It doesn't seem like a very enjoyable thing to go through.

I just think your blanket statement that they were, "Invented to weed out the liars," is patently nonsensical. The, "Liars," don't even need to subject themselves to a rape kit to gather evidence in the first place.

They were invented to gather evidence, evidence that will then either favor the accuser or favor the accused.

Listen, if you want to counter #IBelieveHer with #WomenAreAllLiars, you're free to say whatever you want. I'm just not going to let you make a statement like, "...they had to invent rape kits to weed out the liars," after quoting me and have it go unchallenged because then it looks like I'm agreeing with you.

Just got a live-update / breaking news thing on my phone saying the Senate confirmed Justice Kavanaugh.


Damn I hope Trump does the "presidential alert" text thing and sends out some dank memes. I can't support someone who isn't on point with their meme game.

Quote: Keyser

These women need to be prosecuted for perjury. The witch hunts must stop. These women do not deserve this power.

Yeah? Good luck.

I tend to get the impression that you may not understand what perjury is and how a criminal case for perjury might succeed.

18 U.S. Code 1621

Quote:

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

Okay, so you would actually need to accomplish a few things, here:

1.) You would have to prove that any of the allegations that these women made are not true. In all cases, not only would you have to prove a negative, but you would have to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.) After proving the allegations to be untrue beyond a reasonable doubt, (which you can't) you would then have to prove that the accusers did not even believe they were telling the truth.

In other words, even if you were right, short of them being stupid enough to admit that they perjured themselves, (btw, they wouldn't have to testify in the first place in a criminal case-Fifth Amendment) there would be no way to prove that they did not believe what they were saying.

Long story short, under no set of circumstances, (other than them admitting to it) does a perjury case even have a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful.

That's basically why Avenatti's person was able to say what she said, you can't prove her allegations didn't happen. You'll also notice that she never really actually accuses Kavanaugh himself of committing a crime.

What'sNext?
#GOPHoldsSenate
#GinsburgOrBreyerSeat
#SCOTUS 6-3
#MoreTearsFromTheLeft

Quote: Mission146

Long story short, under no set of circumstances, (other than them admitting to it) does a perjury case even have a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful.

That's basically why Avenatti's person was able to say what she said, you can't prove her allegations didn't happen. You'll also notice that she never really actually accuses Kavanaugh himself of committing a crime.

First, I agree with the requirements of proof of perjury. It is a crime just like all others and the burden of proof is on the state (or feds) to proof them.

That said, this is a major problem with the meetoo movement. An accuser can freely ruin a persons life without fear of repercussions. Now, this has really always been the case. It is just that now, it is taboo to say "Hey, wait a minute, lets look at all the facts". The fact that people like Collins are literally being called "Rapist Enablers" is f**king insane.

Quote: Mission146

You don't like DiCarlos? I think it's okay, definitely not my favorite.

Its "boardwalk pizza." I like it once a month or so. I went more often due to lack of options. But the cleanest joint out there it is not.

Quote:

I'm not going to speculate other than to say I don't know what possible purpose writing the letter could have unless the person expected to, quite probably, end up coming out with it. I mean, you could just write the letter anonymously by not signing it if that's the case, could you not? I write quasi-anonymously on the sites by using a pseudonym. Anybody who posts here does so anonymously (with exceptions) by way of having a handle.

They probably get dozens or more of anonymous letters. They are likely discarded as useless.

Quote:

As far as the early-90's go, no, I do not remember that. I was born in late 1983.

As far as drinking a lot, I understand why he would lie about it. The mere act of drinking heavily does not support Blasey Ford's specific claim, but people would certainly act like it does.

You can hunt it if you want, it is not all that exciting except another Kennedy with woman issues. It was a case on CNN all day, and the accuser had her face hidden.

To drinking, if drinking too much makes one a rapist, virtually everyone I knew in college would be in prison.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

That said, this is a major problem with the meetoo movement. An accuser can freely ruin a persons life without fear of repercussions. Now, this has really always been the case. It is just that now, it is taboo to say "Hey, wait a minute, lets look at all the facts". The fact that people like Collins are literally being called "Rapist Enablers" is f**king insane.

Most feminists hate men while at the same time wish they were men. That they might destroy a man's entire life is meaningless to them if the woman is making it up.

Quote: AZDuffman

Most feminists hate men while at the same time wish they were men.

LOL. I seriously doubt that. I believe that some feminist do hate men. I doubt many if any wish they were men. Why would you want to be a man, we have a lower life expectancy.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Too long to quote you, but it's right above.

Errata. My mom didn't take me for the abortion. She was less than no help. In fact, she never spoke of it again until I threw it at her this week when she said something awful about Dr. Ford. She was ashamed of me for allowing myself to be in a position where I got raped....

I hoped for a few days after your revealing having been raped, that maybe you might have moved it to another thread, like maybe the "I've got a secret thread"? It was to powerful to waste on politics.

Then Sally stepped up the first step, and I was again thinking, maybe something good could come of it? Might even be some other female, [or male] members that might have wanted to come forward? Life ain't easy, being an empath.

Having raised daughters, I had questions about why you never told your dad? What he might have said, could have been the wisest thing he ever told you. Excuse me, for taking a second and speaking from a fathers pov.

Anyway, that was a very personal thing from both of you, thanks to both for sharing.

Don't know the proper terminology but should be sued for defamation / libel / slander / whatever-you-call-it.

Quote: Mission146

I don't know, I don't have the numbers. I don't think that's why they were invented, though. They were invented for the purpose of evidence-gathering, in general, not to prove people are lying.
...
Listen, if you want to counter #IBelieveHer with #WomenAreAllLiars, you're free to say whatever you want. I'm just not going to let you make a statement like, "...they had to invent rape kits to weed out the liars," after quoting me and have it go unchallenged because then it looks like I'm agreeing with you.

Ask for evidence of his claim, and when he doesn't produce it, call him a liar. Has that been established as acceptable behavior?

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

First, I agree with the requirements of proof of perjury. It is a crime just like all others and the burden of proof is on the state (or feds) to proof them.

That said, this is a major problem with the meetoo movement. An accuser can freely ruin a persons life without fear of repercussions. Now, this has really always been the case. It is just that now, it is taboo to say "Hey, wait a minute, lets look at all the facts". The fact that people like Collins are literally being called "Rapist Enablers" is f**king insane.

I agree with you, we should just post in shifts. I have to believe BBB has checked our IP’s to make sure we’re not the same person by now.

Anyway, that’s why I think accusing someone of a crime never taken to police and outside of the statute of limitations without proof beyond a reasonable doubt should have someone dead to rights in a slander/defamation of character civil case...but it doesn’t.

You have people who pointed out that there’s no right to sit on the SCOTUS, Federal Court, etc. Perhaps not, but that fact notwithstanding, you now have millions of people (whether he got on SCOTUS or not) who now believe Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist, even though the allegations will quite probably never be proven. How is that not considered a consequence? “Oh, he’s still a federal judge, he’ll be okay.” Yeah, except he has to go the rest of his life with people calling him a rapist and his family members have to go around with people believing he’s an attempted rapist. If you believe Swetnick, as I’m sure a non-zero number of people do (or pretend to) then you think he’s a serial rapist.

Again, some of the people reacting to Collins make it very difficult to want to self-identify as a liberal.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

LOL. I seriously doubt that. I believe that some feminist do hate men. I doubt many if any wish they were men. Why would you want to be a man, we have a lower life expectancy.

Don't ask me, I am still wondering why if women make so much less money than men there is not full employment among women?

(Note: Thanks to the Trump policies we are close!)

Back to the matter at hand, it is going to be interesting to see how long it takes for the feminists and other haters to move on to the next "crisis." The illegal alien kids have long since been forgotten. The internet is still open to all. But something will be found.

Quote: Dalex64

Ask for evidence of his claim, and when he doesn't produce it, call him a liar. Has that been established as acceptable behavior?

Maybe in America as a whole, on the Forum, I think my next Suspension would be one week...as it should be.