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

from a NYT article that asked his classmates what these terms meant:

Quote:

“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.

Similarly, they said that they had never heard of a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle, but that the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman. “The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year.

Quote: TumblingBones

from a NYT article that asked his classmates what these terms meant:

Quote:

“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.

Similarly, they said that they had never heard of a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle, but that the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman. “The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year.

That’s probably quite correct.

This is again one where he’s painted into a corner because the true answer is going to be taken as incontrovertible proof of Ford’s claims by the Democrats.

I think that’s especially true of Devil’s Triangle. Suppose that he says that he was a participant in consensual threesomes, not only are Ford’s claims going to be automatically construed as true, (which some Democrats are doing already) but you’ll also have Democrats suggest he should not be confirmed due to his sordid sexual history. Obviously, the Democrats are generally all for keeping Government out of the bedroom, but that’s going to get tossed out the window if Kavanaugh admits to anything except the most vanilla of vanilla sexual past...consensual or not.

Either that, or they were just BSing in the yearbook and now he’s fronting for it. I didn’t get any high school yearbooks, because I thought they were a waste of money, so I have no clue what type of stuff people write. When I signed the yearbooks of other people, I either just put my name and left it at that, or I would write a small generic, “Good luck in all you do,” if I really liked you.

I thought the issue with the yearbook wasn't so much that anyone believes he engaged in any non-vanilla sex, but that he made the terms out to be more innocent than they really were, Just more lying to protect his image as Wally in the Leave it to Beaver household.

Quote: rxwine

I thought the issue with the yearbook wasn't so much that anyone believes he engaged in any non-vanilla sex, but that he made the terms out to be more innocent than they really were, Just more lying to protect his image as Wally in the Leave it to Beaver household.

Yeah, that’s my point. They’ll take anything worse than Wally as absolute proof that the accusations are true.

I disagree. Just like every thing that ultimately burns someone like this, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

He sat there and lied to a US Senator. Deliberately and with attitude. During this specific set of exchanges. And during several others on Thursday.

Such contempt for the laws of this country, from a judge on the 2nd highest court trying to be appointed to the highest. I'm quite sure Whitehouse knew the answers to the questions he asked. The point of them was to demonstrate Kavanaughs's failings, if he chose to lie.

That's simply unacceptable. I genuinely don't care what he did as a high-schooler or college student as far as drinking and partying. We all went there. I care very much that as a 54 year old man in a position of great responsibility, requiring impartiality, personal restraint, and jurisprudence, he showed none.

That he would lie about something so easily proven (these terms) just astonishes me. His rage, I think, is fueled by a fair amount of shame.

I pretty much agree with everything BBB said with one exception: I think the rage is a combination of (1) a defense mechanism and (2) anger that somebody as entitled as he should have to be called on the carpet for his actions. I don't think he feels any shame.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I disagree. Just like every thing that ultimately burns someone like this, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

I disagree with your disagreement. There are people out there willing to accept the unprovable allegations as proof in and of themselves, so you pretty much have to try to cover up for any hint of anything. It’s not like a legitimate criminal case where you’re really just better off to tell the truth if the event didn’t happen or you merely don’t remember it happening. (As opposed to outright denial)

Quote:

He sat there and lied to a US Senator. Deliberately and with attitude. During this specific set of exchanges. And during several others on Thursday.

Okay, so he lied to a liar. Who cares? Everybody is allowed to behave in a completely sanctimonious way on this one except for him? 46 of those Senators permanently sealed my opinion when they refused to confirm Gorsuch, there was no reason not to except he disagrees with their politics...but the SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be about politics, legislating from the bench for results driven legal interpretations...but it is.

The Republicans lost me when they wouldn’t enable Obama to do his duty conferred to him by the Constitution, which is to fill the SCOTUS vacancy.

Anyway, so you have the full body of the Senate with maybe a grand total of six people who are willing to even consider bipartisanism. Who cares if he lied to them? The Democrats are doing their best to railroad him from a fairly weak position, anyway.

Quote:

That's simply unacceptable. I genuinely don't care what he did as a high-schooler or college student as far as drinking and partying. We all went there. I care very much that as a 54 year old man in a position of great responsibility, requiring impartiality, personal restraint, and jurisprudence, he showed none.

Maybe you personally don’t care, but the Democrats will take it as absolute proof of Ford’s claim, at least, those of them who don’t think the mere fact she is making a claim constitutes proof by itself.

Maybe you don’t believe that he was guilty as charged in some people’s eyes the second that the accusation was made. That’s fine. We don’t have to agree.

Quote:

That he would lie about something so easily proven (these terms) just astonishes me. His rage, I think, is fueled by a fair amount of shame.

Doesn’t prove anything. There’s no way anyone can dispute beyond doubt that is what he took those terms to mean. I can obviously strongly disbelieve it, but that doesn’t mean I can prove he doesn’t think they mean what he says he thinks they meant.

More importantly, it doesn’t speak to Ford’s underlying claim whatsoever and I also think that Kavanaugh has a not unreasonable reason to lie.

Quote: AxelWolf

How come no one else remembers it either? So far, everyone has refuted her claims, including her own friend who she admits to abandoning in a rape house. Then afterward, she even made nice with his friend at the supermarket.

Where are you getting this story from?
Next ,she'll be prowling parties looking to take advantage of drunken frat boys

Quote: Mission146

I disagree with your disagreement. There are people out there willing to accept the unprovable allegations as proof in and of themselves, so you pretty much have to try to cover up for any hint of anything. It’s not like a legitimate criminal case where you’re really just better off to tell the truth if the event didn’t happen or you merely don’t remember it happening. (As opposed to outright denial)



Okay, so he lied to a liar. Who cares? Everybody is allowed to behave in a completely sanctimonious way on this one except for him? 46 of those Senators permanently sealed my opinion when they refused to confirm Gorsuch, there was no reason not to except he disagrees with their politics...but the SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be about politics, legislating from the bench for results driven legal interpretations...but it is.

The Republicans lost me when they wouldn’t enable Obama to do his duty conferred to him by the Constitution, which is to fill the SCOTUS vacancy.

Anyway, so you have the full body of the Senate with maybe a grand total of six people who are willing to even consider bipartisanism. Who cares if he lied to them? The Democrats are doing their best to railroad him from a fairly weak position, anyway.



Maybe you personally don’t care, but the Democrats will take it as absolute proof of Ford’s claim, at least, those of them who don’t think the mere fact she is making a claim constitutes proof by itself.

Maybe you don’t believe that he was guilty as charged in some people’s eyes the second that the accusation was made. That’s fine. We don’t have to agree.



Doesn’t prove anything. There’s no way anyone can dispute beyond doubt that is what he took those terms to mean. I can obviously strongly disbelieve it, but that doesn’t mean I can prove he doesn’t think they mean what he says he thinks they meant.

More importantly, it doesn’t speak to Ford’s underlying claim whatsoever and I also think that Kavanaugh has a not unreasonable reason to lie.

And with that, Mission has jumped the shark.
Who cares if a prospective Supreme Court Justice lies?

Quote: billryan

And with that, Mission has jumped the shark.
Who cares if a prospective Supreme Court Justice lies?

If lying or being in any way deceptive is disqualifying, you’ll never have a Supreme Court Justice again, is my point. When they say they’ll look at the cases brought to them impartially, they’ve already lied.

I’m also saying you can’t strictly prove that he lied about anything.

Quote: billryan

Where are you getting this story from?
Next ,she'll be prowling parties looking to take advantage of drunken frat boys

I attended a party with ford when I was 10 (I only had one beer, I swear) she told me everything after she touchy, touchy my no-no zone.

Quote: billryan

For a criminal conviction, yes. I tend to hold my Supreme Court Justices to higher standards. Much as I hold someone running for President to a.different standard than someone running a.family company.
A single accusation, Perhaps. Multiple ones plus the sheer contempt he showed in the hearings have changed my opinion. I don't think he deserves to be appointed and hope the investigation shows that.

You also seem to think that a single accusation, not proof, could perhaps be enough to keep him off the SCOTUS. You also seem to think multiple accusations, without proof, are certainly enough.

I don’t see how you accuse me of jumping the shark. I just care about stuff happening to people who are accused of unprovable crimes. I don’t have a rooting interest in Kavanaugh being on the SCOTUS. Quite frankly, I’d prefer he not be, but not because of unprovable accusations.

Quote: Mission146

If lying or being in any way deceptive is disqualifying, you’ll never have a Supreme Court Justice again, is my point. When they say they’ll look at the cases brought to them impartially, they’ve already lied.

I’m also saying you can’t strictly prove that he lied about anything.

That's exactly the mind-set these grifters want you to have. As long as we're willing to accept this kind of behavior things will never get better.

Quote: TumblingBones

That's exactly the mind-set these grifters want you to have. As long as we're willing to accept this kind of behavior things will never get better.

You’ve seen the end of any bipartisan efforts anyway, so what difference does it make?

It’s not even enough to pick a side...your side will shun you if you aren’t sufficiently dogmatic or fervent enough in your holding of the tenets.

Ideally, these higher political institutions would be above base hatred for, “The other.” They would represent the best and most reasonable of people, but not anymore. The Senate and the most recent Presidential Election have been representative of the absolute worst that people are capable of.

I don’t see it changing, so screw it. For the status quo to change would require bipartisanism and finding common ground...but that’s the precise opposite of what the status quo is about.

Quote: TumblingBones

That's exactly the mind-set these grifters want you to have. As long as we're willing to accept this kind of behavior things will never get better.

Who hasn't lied, you, your SO, a school teacher, actor, realtor, friend, car salesman? Somebody here at wov? Poker players, DI's, Bac players.

You find a completely honest person, they would have something mentally unique and wrong with them.

Relationships are built on honest lies.

Quote: petroglyph

Who hasn't lied, you, your SO, a school teacher, actor, realtor, friend, car salesman? Somebody here at wov? Poker players, DI's, Bac players.

I've never lied in a professional setting about anything non-trivial (e.g., finding an excuse to not join client for dinner)

Quote:

Relationships are built on honest lies.

what exactly is an "honest lie"? Not being snarky, just curious.

Quote: TumblingBones

I've never lied in a professional setting about anything non-trivial (e.g., finding an excuse to not join client for dinner)

what exactly is an "honest lie"? Not being snarky, just curious.

How is the meaning of the yearbook stuff not trivial? It doesn’t prove or disprove Ford’s claim that a specific physical event took place in any way whatsoever.

Quote: AxelWolf

How come no one else remembers it either? So far, everyone has refuted her claims, including her own friend who she admits to abandoning in a rape house. Then afterward, she even made nice with his friend at the supermarket.

Quote: billryan

Where are you getting this story from?
Next ,she'll be prowling parties looking to take advantage of drunken frat boys

"So far, everyone has refuted her claims, including her own friend"

-PJ, Mike Judge and Lealand have all said that they have no recollection of the event Ford describes

"who she admits to abandoning in a rape house"

Ford testimony:
"I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell through the living room, and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I had escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me."

Ford left without saying anything, abandoning her friend Leland, leaving her alone with possible rapists

"Then afterward, she even made nice with his friend at the supermarket"

Ford testimony:
DURBIN:
In the letter which you sent to Dr. — or, Senator Feinstein you wrote, “I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see Mark Judge once at the Potomac Village Safeway where he was extremely uncomfortable in seeing me.” Would you please describe that encounter at the Safeway with Mark Judge and what led you to believe he was uncomfortable?
FORD: Yes.
I was going to the Potomac Village Safeway — this is the one on the corner of Falls and River Road — and I was with my mother. And I was a teenager, so I wanted her to go in one door and me go in the other.
So I chose the wrong door, because the door I chose was the one where Mark Judge was — looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts. And I said “Hello” to him. And his face was white and very uncomfortable saying “Hello” back. And we had previously been friendly at the times that we saw each other over the previous two years. Albeit not very many times, we had always been friendly with one another.
I wouldn’t characterize him as not friendly. He was just nervous and not really wanting to speak with me."

Lying, under oath, to Congress is not only a criminal offence,but is also a reflection of his character. I believe his character alone disqualifies him from consideration from a lifetime appointment.
I'm disappointed in him. I actually thought he wasn't a bad choice when you consider the alternatives.
I've never lied under oath, and I hope I never do. Would you like a Justice who thinks and behaves as he did before Congress. Had the Chairman been impartial, he have been pushing contempt charges.

Quote: billryan

Had the Chairman been impartial, he have been pushing contempt charges.

But, he’s not, and nor is anyone else.

If unprovable claims were not sufficient to perhaps keep him off the SCOTUS, and they should not be sufficient, then Thursday’s hearing never happens in the first place.

Just show me a Democrat willing to come out and at least admit that her accusations can’t be proven. You won’t see it happen. It’s all, “I believe, I believe, I believe.”

What you believe doesn’t matter. It’s what you can prove that should matter. That’s why we have a proper criminal process for crimes.

Quote: Mission146

How is the meaning of the yearbook stuff not trivial? It doesn’t prove or disprove Ford’s claim that a specific physical event took place in any way whatsoever.

It proves that he's willing to lie to Congress during sworn testimony, a felony, rather than tell the truth, which includes an admission of some sort, even tacit, that they were immature assholes. His own classmates have told interviewers exactly what they meant to those kids at that time, as a fact-check.

That's not trivial. Even though the subject is.

It's really important to understand the life of privilege he grew up in. Those elite schools protected kids when they misbehaved and bought them out of trouble. They looked the other way at underage drinking and insane parties. He thinks he's entitled to do what he wants to women, and superior to other people in authority, because he's an American prince. He has a destiny. And the world owes it to him to out him on the Scotus. He's been told that since he was little, and ever since, and all his experiences make him believe it. There are no consequences in his arrogant life, and the little people are just there to serve him.

There are many, many better candidates out there. The Republicans should find one.

Quote: Mission146

You also seem to think that a single accusation, not proof, could perhaps be enough to keep him off the SCOTUS. You also seem to think multiple accusations, without proof, are certainly enough.

I don’t see how you accuse me of jumping the shark. I just care about stuff happening to people who are accused of unprovable crimes. I don’t have a rooting interest in Kavanaugh being on the SCOTUS. Quite frankly, I’d prefer he not be, but not because of unprovable accusations.

If you think it's so easy to make a false accusation against a supreme court nominee and get away with it, then prove it. You're making an unverified claim. These women get lawyers, have their name dragged into public, set themselves up for lawsuits and attacks just to make a false charge?

You're the one who says you can't accept a charge without proof, so that's the standard i'll hold you to.

Quote: rxwine

If you think it's so easy to make a false accusation against a supreme court nominee and get away with it, then prove it. You're making an unverified claim. These women get lawyers, have their name dragged into public, set themselves up for lawsuits and attacks just to make a false charge?

You're the one who says you can't accept a charge without proof, so that's the standard i'll hold you to.

I didn’t accuse anyone of making a false accusation, I said, “Unprovable.” Feel free to read my posts prior to responding, I really don’t mind if you do.

Quote: Mission146

I didn’t accuse anyone of making a false accusation, I said, “Unprovable.” Feel free to read my posts prior to responding, I really don’t mind if you do.

Fine, same challenge, but change to unprovable. I don' t see how that is going to help you.

i'll wait for you to appear in the news with an accuser exposing yourself to all that liability.

Quote: beachbumbabs

It proves that he's willing to lie to Congress during sworn testimony, a felony, rather than tell the truth, which includes an admission of some sort, even tacit, that they were immature assholes. His own classmates have told interviewers exactly what they meant to those kids at that time, as a fact-check.

Whoop-dee-do. Like I said, he can’t admit to anything without the Democrats using it as effectively proving Ford’s claim, from their supposed perspective. Which isn’t even really their perspective, because if you flip the script and you’re talking about a Democrat, then it flips the side everyone takes. Just like with Clinton.

Quote:

That's not trivial. Even though the subject is.

The only thing that makes it non-trivial is that the Democrats want to use a yearbook entry essentially as incontrovertible proof of a completely unrelated physical event.

In my view, the only things that shouldn’t be trivial are:

1. If Kavanuagh admitted to the physical act.

2. Actual proof of the allegation.

3. If Judge said that the event, or some similar event happened.

4. MAYBE, MAYBE, if some of the people Blasey Ford put at that party agreed with her account of events, or at least that there was such a party. That would justify further investigation, not that any such could have resulted in proof.

Quote:

It's really important to understand the life of privilege he grew up in. Those elite schools protected kids when they misbehaved and bought them out of trouble. They looked the other way at underage drinking and insane parties. He thinks he's entitled to do what he wants to women, and superior to other people in authority, because he's an American prince. He has a destiny. And the world owes it to him to out him on the Scotus. He's been told that since he was little, and ever since, and all his experiences make him believe it. There are no consequences in his arrogant life, and the little people are just there to serve him.

I do understand the life of privilege as remarkably similar to the life of privilege Blasey Ford and most of these Senators grew up in.

I can tell you that the school didn’t get Kavanaugh out of trouble in this case because no criminal complaint was ever filed. If you want to know what, “Got him out of trouble,” at least until recently, there you go. Except now, Blasey Ford’s allégations have no hope of being proven and that should matter.

Your next sentence about, “He thinks he’s entitled to do what he wants to women,” says as much as you believe the accuser with no proof whatsoever. Women, plural, so you apparently believe two or three of the accusers even though they lack proof.

Quote:

There are many, many better candidates out there. The Republicans should find one.

I agree, but not for the same reasons. Although, I can tell you that if the Democrats don’t take the Senate in November, it’s going to get a lot worse. They’ll find a woman six times as conservative as Kavanaugh could ever hope to be.

Quote: rxwine

Fine, same challenge, but change to unprovable. I don' t see how that is going to help you.

i'll wait for you to appear in the news with an accuser exposing yourself to all that liability.

First, there is a huge difference between saying, “False,” and, “Unprovable,” so I don’t necessarily appreciate your gross misrepresentation of my position.

Well, there’s an accusation now, it’s unprovable, so it looks like I win the challenge. I don’t know what you think would prove Ford’s allegation. Thirty years later? Nothing short of video, although, Judge admitting to it would be sufficient to keep him off the SCOTUS, in my view, though it doesn’t technically prove anything.

Also, what liability? To have perjury, he’d have to be able to prove a negative. To have defamation, he’d have to prove her wrong based on a preponderance of the evidence. There’s essentially no evidence and what there is very slightly favors him...but I don’t think he wins a defamation case.

Quote: VCUSkyhawk

Not to mention polygraphs are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.

Quote: troopscott

Polygraphs are unreliable. There is a reason why they are not admissible in court. End of story

Quote: Zcore13

I passed a polygraph test in about 1985 or so. I lied on every question except my name.

TumblingBones has a brief insight into polygraph test and FBI background investigation on page 10 of this thread.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/31639-should-kavanaugh-by-required-to-take-polygraph-test-during-the-up-coming-fbi-investigation/10/

The opinion on the reliability of polygraph test often relies on “self-interest” factor, and it basically comes down to this: Does the result of the polygraph test hurt you or help you, does it promote your agenda? Here are few examples:

Remember That Time Brett Kavanaugh Said Polygraphs Are Important In Making Hiring Decisions?
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/remember-that-time-brett-kavanaugh-said-polygraphs-are-important-in-making-hiring-decisions/

Brett Kavanaugh Once Said Polygraphs Are A Good Tool. Now He Says They’re Unreliable. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-polygraph-christine-blasey-ford_us_5bad52cbe4b0425e3c21f60a

Kavanaugh had different tune on lie detectors in the past
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-had-different-tune-lie-detectors-past-171659186--politics.html

A False Charge on Polygraphs
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-flip-flop-wasnt-on-polygraphs/

Former federal prosecutor suggests FBI ‘strap Kavanaugh to a polygraph’ since he previously defended them
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/former-federal-prosecutor-suggests-fbi-strap-kavanaugh-polygraph-since-previously-defended/

And so on ….
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&ei=zjexW7byC4-wtQXCq5mIDQ&q=kavanaugh+polygraph&oq=kavanaugh+polygraph&gs_l=psy-ab.12...666058.669176..671329...0.0..0.70.576.9....2..0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i3j0i131.fE-pmaENIgE

We don’t use polygraph test to determine “guilt/innocent” because it does not have high level of accuracy like fingering print or DNA data and it can possibly be “manipulated” (I’m not sure how easy it is to manipulate this? Perhaps Zcore13 can give everyone a lesson on how to beat the polygraph test.) in some circumstances. But it can be a useful tool that can be applied in conjunction with other investigation/interrogation method for employment screening and for evaluation of one’s credibility. I’m in favor of a polygraph tests on supplemental FBI background investigation on Kavanaugh -- not for the purpose of determining guilt/innocent, but rather for evaluating integrity and credibility of ALL involved parties.

Background investigation process can be a “one-way” process if only best friends and good neighbors, and positive references are relied on for fact checking purposes. Did Kavanaugh list Dr. Ford, Mark Judge, Ramirez, and many of his drinking buddies/roommates as reference for his “good” character? Of course not, and the reason the public had discovered these new “reference” is because the job interview process for political appointments and high-profile appointment is open to the public. Sunlight is the best disinfectants and democracy dies in darkness, and therefore; these "open to the public" job interviews provide transparency and are good for democracy.

Are you better off in an imperfect democracy than in a no democracy or in a dictatorial or authoritarian regime?

And with regarding to the supplemental FBI background investigation on Kavanaugh being conducted at this moment, my concern is this investigation is being conducted in such a limited scoped, and the biggest concern is that it is not conducted in an independent manner and is controlled and dictated by the GOP, and the WH run by the racist, sexist, rapist, liar, and con-artist Trump, and therefore; it can be viewed as a sham investigation and is not good for democracy.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&ei=5T-xW_3sCoe_jwTyhKvQBw&q=kavanaugh+sham+investigation&oq=kavanaugh+sham+investigation&gs_l=psy-ab.3...335783.338884..341540...0.0..0.62.534.10......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i13j0i8i13i30.3AAJopid3gw

777,

Tell you what, let’s just say Kavanaugh did it and keep him off the SCOTUS. We don’t even need any further investigation, he’s guilty, done. After that, let’s just say everyone accused of anything automatically did it from now on.

Will your view of what democracy should be then be satisfied?

Polygraphs are legally inadmissible, and as such, shouldn’t be used for anything. Simple.

Quote: TumblingBones

what exactly is an "honest lie"? Not being snarky, just curious.

eg, I promise baby, I've never looked at another woman.

You are the best I ever had, etc.

Quote: Mission146

First, there is a huge difference between saying, “False,” and, “Unprovable,” so I don’t necessarily appreciate your gross misrepresentation of my position.

You're the one afraid to call it false, not me. I'm the one who thinks an accusation needs the exposure if a person believes it to be true even if there is little chance of being able to prove it.

Quote:

Also, what liability?

Any lie about anything under oath is perjury, not just about whether the attack happened, There's also the public condemnation once your name is out there.

Quote: rxwine

You're the one afraid to call it false, not me. I'm the one who thinks an accusation needs the exposure if a person believes it to be true even if there is little chance of being able to prove it.

I’ve said on at least two occasions that I don’t disbelieve Ford or her claims, so why would I want to call her accusation false?

Because I have no reason to want to call it false, by extension, I’m not, “Afraid,” to call it false. I’m not calling them false because I have no reason to do so. There lacks sufficient proof for or against, in my view.

Please read my posts more carefully before responding or just don’t respond. If you continue to deliberately misrepresent my positions, I’m blocking you.

Quote:

Any lie about anything under oath is perjury, not just about whether the attack happened, There's also the public condemnation once your name is out there.

I think I’m getting a migraine.

First of all, I don’t think she’s lying.

Secondly, if she’s wrong about anything in fact, I think she does believe what she’s saying.

Third, would that be similar to the public condemnation one might experience after being accused of rape? Just curious.

Fourth, for a perjury charge to succeed, you’d have to prove she lied under oath. Even if she were deliberately lying, and I don’t think she is, how can you prove the alleged event did NOT happen?

You can’t prove it didn’t happen any more or less than you can prove it did happen, which has been my entire point for the last several days.

The reason I think Ford's statement is not confusion is she has to confuse the identity of two men at close quarters, not just one. So, i'm left with a lie, or truth. or a completely false memory involving an attack that occurred at some point. That's my position on it.

Quote: Mission146

If you continue to deliberately misrepresent my positions, I’m blocking you.

I wish some other people would offer that. I think you might be engaging in various small equivocations in your arguments.

I have a broken shoulder, so i'm not inclined to write extensively to prove it. So, point in your favor.

Quote: rxwine

The reason I think Ford's statement is not confusion is she has to confuse the identity of two men at close quarters, not just one. So, i'm left with a lie, or truth. or a completely false memory involving an attack that occurred at some point. That's my position on it.

I don’t mean confusion in that sense. I think she’s got who was in the room right. I don’t think she or anyone else can prove it.

My position has always been about nothing but what can or can’t be proven. My position is it doesn’t matter who one, “Believes,” without proof. If you’re going to make an accusation of a crime decades after the fact, then my personal opinion and standard for any adverse consequences whatsoever on the accused is strict proof. Nothing else has ever been my position.

Quote:

I wish some other people would offer that. I think you might be engaging in various small equivocations in your arguments.

I’m sorry about your shoulder. As far as equivocations, of course I’m not staunchly taking one side or the other, because I don’t think either has proof.

If you were going to put a gun to my head, I’d say I lean more Blasey Ford than I do Kavanaugh, to be honest. However, that doesn’t prove anything and nor can she.

If you want to know what I specifically think, which again shouldn’t and doesn’t matter, it’s that something occurred along the lines of what she said that’s not quite as bad as she describes. That’s not to minimize it. I have no opinion whatsoever on Ramirez, though I consider it an extremely minor incident even if it happened exactly as she says. I think Swetnick is flat out lying.

Either way, I don’t think anyone can PROVE anything. We have a criminal process for a reason. The reason why is that if Kavanaugh was charged and found not guilty he could say, “Look, I was found not guilty.”

So, I don’t think we have much of a point of departure as to whether we believe Blasey Ford or not, except maybe to the extent of what happened. Our point of departure is whether or not merely, “Believing,” something, as opposed to having proof, should matter.

I say proof matters, you say it doesn’t, but our disagreement is nothing more than that.

And, it’s not political, because I’m a liberal.

It’s not about Kavanaugh being on SCOTUS, because I’d prefer he not be.

We just have to have solid values that we can all agree on. I value our criminal process to the extent that I think proof of guilt should be needed to suffer consequences for a criminal accusation. I think both sides should find a point of agreement there, the tenet of innocent until PROVEN guilty, but they don’t. Nothing I can do about it. It doesn’t mean I have to be moved off of holding that as a value, though.

Thanks for the reply MIssion.

``
Addressing anyone for this next comment.

Regarding the 'everyone is a liar to some degree' defense, so, so what, Kavenaugh is to, I think my problem with that is Kavanaogh has adopted a position I would call "higher than Pope".


In other words, even though he got almost falling down drunk, or what we sometimes called 'shit-faced' drunk, he was not one of those obnoxious, loud, stepping over line bad behavior drunks, but this Pope-like sinless drunk, who might at worst fart at the wrong moment. Just too unbelievable. I NEED A MORE HONEST DSHONEST SC THAN HE REPRESENTS. Holier than thou defense, ugg,

Quote: rxwine

In other words, even though he got almost falling down drunk, or what we sometimes called 'shit-faced' drunk, he was not one of those obnoxious, loud, stepping over line bad behavior drunks, but this Pope-like sinless drunk, who might at worst fart at the wrong moment. Just too unbelievable. I NEED A MORE HONEST DSHONEST SC THAN HE REPRESENTS. Holier than thou defense, ugg,

This is kind of what I was talking about with BBB.

If Kavanaugh admits to getting blackout drunk, then the Democrats are going to take that as being just as good as proving Blasey Ford's claims. They are going to ask, "If there are nights that you don't remember, then how do you know that the night that Blasey Ford describes wasn't one such night?" He can't deny, at least toa satisfactory enough degree, that the Blasey Ford event didn't happen if he admits to having blackout nights.

In my case, I can say a few things about drinking:

I can say that I find it astoundingly hard to believe that Kavanaugh can drink to the point of intoxication with any frequency and not occasionally get blackout drunk. Drinking changes so much from one occasion to another. How hydrated are you? What have you eaten that day? How fast are you drinking? How much?

My drinking style can only be described as, "Fast and hard," so there's some variance that comes with that and drinking, in general. There have been nights where I've put down the equivalent of an entire handle (1.75L) in a period of six or eight hours, retained my memory and went to bed intentionally rather than passing out. On some of those nights, I've even made a ham and spinach omelette and some toast before bed...which seems to be my favorite thing to eat when I'm smashed.

Other nights, I've gone night night (without planning to do so) in a desk chair just off of a fifth (750ml) that I had been mixing! I've woke up at six in the morning, still sitting basically upright, before going to bed wondering how and when I fell asleep/passed out, whatever.

But, unlike me, Kavanuagh doesn't have the luxury of admitting it.

The one thing that I can say is that, even blackout drunk, I know I've never tried to rape anybody. I can't technically prove it or make a 100% definitive statement, because if my memory is gone, how could I? However, I know I simply have never done it.

When it comes to inappropriate behavior, I've peed on absolutely everything if I've been outside. Not like other people's property, or anything, but trees...alleys...middle of the road...I'm not going to piss myself and things don't tend to be open that late for a public bathroom.

If we go back to high school, I passed out on a park bench once and woke up very confused. I get off on a technicality because I was only out for an hour, so I technically ended up, "Making it back," which keeps me at 100%, "Made it back," for life. Some of my idiot friends thought it'd be funny to leave me there and come back for me later...they were just as surprised (and worried-HAHA) to get back and find me gone! It was a pretty funny joke, though, even though it backfired on them and they spent the better part of the night searching for me everywhere except my one friend's house...which was our end of the night destination! Imagine my surprise when they woke me up yelling at me for leaving the bench!!!

The second time I went to Vegas, everything between getting in the vehicle with Axelwolf & Co. at the end of that first night and waking up in my hotel room is just GONE. They said I took myself back up to the room and they let me out outside at Downtown Grand...I'm still shocked I got myself back to the room. I have no recollection whatsoever of doing that. That's on me, entirely. Even when I'm in blackout mode, as long as I'm conscious, I seem like I have some idea what's going on. They probably thought I was fine after my nap. This particular incident I think had as much to do with not sleeping in over a day prior as it had to do with amount of alcohol consumed.

Those are the only two complete blackouts I can think of where I wasn't home, at a friend's or in a hotel room at the point of blacking out. Anyway, anybody can say whatever they want to about what I did during those times and how would I prove it wrong? The only thing I can say is, "I don't think I would have done that, but I have no recollection of that specific time on that specific night."

In Kavanaugh's case, that doesn't fly. In his case, any lack of memory on his part is going to be taken as an admission to Blasey Ford's accusation. Like I said, for some, the accusation itself is its own proof. You know and I know that there were people who believed it as irrefutably true before any other accusations came out and before any testimony was heard.

Anyway, the Senate (Democrats, anyhow) are wanting to hold him to a standard of proof (against) that absolutely would not be acceptable in any other context, so he's just trying to meet that standard, even if lying is required to do so.

In my educated theory, it's only a matter of time before the friend that Ford allegedly left alone to be raped when they were drunk teens starts bringing Ford's name through the mud this year as retaliation.

DANG, are we writing the news here or reading it?

Quote:

WASHINGTON — A Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accused him on Sunday of a “blatant mischaracterization” of his drinking while in college, saying that he often saw Judge Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption.”

The classmate, Chad Ludington, who said he frequently socialized with Judge Kavanaugh as a student, said in a statement that the judge had been untruthful in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he had denied any possibility that he had ever blacked out from drinking.

Mr. Ludington said that Judge Kavanaugh had played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking, and that the judge had often become “belligerent and aggressive” while intoxicated. Other former classmates have made similar claims.

“It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges,” Mr. Ludington said, adding that he planned to “take my information to the F.B.I.”

Mr. Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University who appears to have made small political contributions to Democratic candidates, said to The New York Times on Sunday that he had been told by the F.B.I.’s Washington, D.C., field office that he should go to the bureau’s Raleigh, N.C., office on Monday morning. He said he intended to do that, so he could “tell the full details of my story.”

It is illegal to lie to Congress. But it was unclear whether the F.B.I. would add Mr. Ludington’s accusations to the newly reopened background investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh, which has been limited in scope and time by the White House and Senate Republicans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/yale-classmate-accuses-kavanaugh-of-‘blatant-mischaracterization’-of-his-drinking/ar-BBNLwzp?ocid=spartanntp

Quote: djatc

https://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=usa

any takers?

Wtf is 6/4 odds?

Quote: Mission146

777,

Tell you what, let’s just say Kavanaugh did it and keep him off the SCOTUS. We don’t even need any further investigation, he’s guilty, done. After that, let’s just say everyone accused of anything automatically did it from now on.

Will your view of what democracy should be then be satisfied?

Polygraphs are legally inadmissible, and as such, shouldn’t be used for anything. Simple.

Shit happens, more about it later.

"Copy cat" behavior happens everyday and is a legitimate concern, but your hypothetical extrapolation to conclude that "everyone accused of anything automatically did it from now on" is a weak and silly argument.

Shit happens! Bad luck happens! One can get hit by lightning, kill by drunk driver, die in a natural disaster, rape by Kavanaugh or John Doe, be born with birth defect, be wrongly accused/convicted of a crime, and so on. And I consider the aforementioned shitty or bad luck events are very minor when compare to a hypothetical situation you described in another post that when some stranger suddenly burst into the room during an interview in a private sector and accuse a prospective candidate of a sexual assault. Shit happens, indeed.

And then on an opposite spectrum of "shit happens", one can get very lucky too. Imagine winning a $500M jackpot lottery, being born into very wealthy family, getting pardoned by the racist, sexist, rapist, liar, and con-artist Trump, getting away with murder like OJ Simpson, and so on.

Talking about OJ, nobody extrapolated OJ acquittal into an "everyone citizen is going to have a license to kill from now on".

Bad thing, bad luck, good thing and good luck can happen to anyone of us. It is saddened that bad luck happened to people, and it is equally saddened that people got away with murder or unethically/immorally manipulate the system. It is understandable that we all have concern, but to quickly and thoughtlessly let one individual or single event to destroy or to weaken our democratic institution is a very bad idea.

Many people are wrongly accused every day. People are getting away with murder every day too. Kavanaugh is no different than ordinary citizen, except for one thing: he is a high-profile public figure who can exert great influence/impact on our daily life and our democratic institution, and thus requires special scrutiny, must be thoroughly investigated.

There is no perfect institution -- democratic or otherwise, and we must learn how to live/adjust/adapt with both the good and the bad, and must find way to make improvements. Considering the changing time and the divisiveness among us, I want to reform our political campaigning, lobbying, gerrymandering, and to call for congressional term limit. Well, I am afraid that many here would consider my desire for reform are really just wishful thinking.

Quote: RS

Quote: djatc

https://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=usa

any takers?

Wtf is 6/4 odds?

I think it means it resolves on June 4. Which year who knows.

This is Ruth Mitchell’s analysis of Ford’s testimony: Memo

“But this case is weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

Damning analysis. Too bad she never got to question Kavanaugh.

BLUMENTHAL to Kavanaugh: [In law, there’s a Latin phrase that means] ‘false in one thing, false in everything.’ Meaning in jury instructions that [prosecutors tell] the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing. So the core of why we’re here today really is credibility. Let me talk…

This is the same guy who lied about serving in Vietnam, and received five military deferments while taking steps to avoid going to war.

NY Times

“We have learned something very important since the days that I served in Vietnam”

He blames it on 'misplaced' words, but he also said, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this.”

Perhaps he meant to say 'they' rather than 'we'.

Quote: Tanko

This is Ruth Mitchell’s analysis of Ford’s testimony: Memo

“But this case is weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

Damning analysis. Too bad she never got to question Kavanaugh.

I hope the people(BBB, BillRyan) who believe Christine Blasey Ford's allegations read this entire report.

After reading it, I'm100% convinced she is nothing but a BIG FAT LIAR AND A FAKE. I just wish she could be prosecuted for purposely making faults allegations.

The entire ordeal is an absolute disgrace. I believe the American people are smart enough to make their own decisions come voting time in November. They see through all the games the Dems are playing.

As far as Ford goes, have you ever heard the saying " Hell hath no fury like a scorned woman?" It appears to me that she was a troubled teenager who probably had a crush on Kavanaugh and he never gave her the time of day... and this is payback time. He was The Jock, the captain of his sports team, top of his class, I'm sure he'd like to party... She didn't have a chance with this guy.

Quote: WatchMeWin

As far as Ford goes, have you ever heard the saying " Hell hath no fury like a scorned woman?" It appears to me that she was a troubled teenager who probably had a crush on Kavanaugh and he never gave her the time of day... and this is payback time. He was The Jock, the captain of his sports team, top of his class, I'm sure he'd like to party... She didn't have a chance with this guy.

Ladies and gentlemen, for your reading pleasure, let me present to you the biased far right take on it.

Seriously, this theory is beyond ridiculous. You’re essentially saying she wants to keep him off of SCOTUS 30+ years down the line because he’s an unrequited crush of hers? She’s married. She’s a doctor. What would she care about an unrequited crush? Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Tanko

This is Ruth Mitchell’s analysis of Ford’s testimony: Memo

“But this case is weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

Damning analysis. Too bad she never got to question Kavanaugh.

I hope the people(BBB, BillRyan) who believe Christine Blasey Ford's allegations read this entire report.

After reading it, I'm100% convinced she is nothing but a BIG FAT LIAR AND A FAKE. I just wish she could be prosecuted for purposely making faults allegations.

Ruth Mitchell was paid by the Republican Senate Judiciary Committee to write this report.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily inaccurate, but I would not consider her a neutral party.

Quote: gamerfreak

Ruth Mitchell was paid by the Republican Senate Judiciary Committee to write this report.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily inaccurate, but I would not consider her a neutral party.

That’s probably fair, but I think the overall point that there’s not enough evidence so far that this would ever see a criminal trial holds...that’s if the statute of limitations weren’t already up, of course.

Quote: Mission146

Ladies and gentlemen, for your reading pleasure, let me present to you the biased far right take on it.

Seriously, this theory is beyond ridiculous. You’re essentially saying she wants to keep him off of SCOTUS 30+ years down the line because he’s an unrequited crush of hers? She’s married. She’s a doctor. What would she care about an unrequited crush? Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Yes, of course it was sarcasm. But the notion about this dem scam being a disgrace is not.