Should Kavanaugh by required to take polygraph test during the up coming FBI investigation?
Poll
 | 4 votes (33.33%) | ||
| | 9 votes (75%) |
12 members have voted
Should the FBI interview her?
Quote: billryanA woman in Florida is said to have direct evidence of the Judge putting grain alcohol and qualudes into punches at parties.
Should the FBI interview her?
Avenatti's person? I guess maybe you could call her and ask her what the direct evidence is, if her evidence is, "I saw it happen," that's not actual proof of anything. Especially not coming from anyone associated with that s***-meister Avenatti.
Like, if she has a videotape of it, that would be awesome. If she's saying she has a videotape, absolutely send someone to interview her if it's qualudes or any other pill. If it's alcohol, we called that, "Jungle Juice," and pretty much everyone knew that's the concoction on the table...at least where I come from. Everybody knew, don't drink, "The punch," unless you want to get hammered. I don't think anybody was trying to rape anyone in our case, some people just like Kool-Aid. I don't. I usually drank bourbon or rye straight at these parties, but sometimes I'd switch to beer or this thing called Smirnoff Triple Black I liked at the time.
I seriously hope, "Spiking the punch," is not seen as evidence unless it's with some kind of drug. That would just be silly.
Not if they are as out of the news as many here.Quote: billryanA woman in Florida is said to have direct evidence of the Judge putting grain alcohol and qualudes into punches at parties.
Should the FBI interview her?
"Julie Swetnick, in her first broadcast television interview since accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, told NBC News national correspondent Kate Snow she couldn't be sure that Kavanaugh was one of the boys who assaulted her during a party in the 1980s.
Swetnick, in a sworn affidavit released last week by her attorney Michael Avenatti, said she was the victim of a gang rape at a party, at which she also saw Kavanaugh behave inappropriately toward women.
"I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me," Swetnick told Snow". . . .hollywood reporter
“While in her prior allegations she said she saw him “spike” drinks, she now said she only saw him hand red Solo cups to girls. daily beast
Or surfingQuote: TomGIn all this he said-she said mess the one thing I truly believe is that if it was weed at those teenage parties instead of alcohol, Kavanaugh would already be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Mission146Avenatti's person? I guess maybe you could call her and ask her what the direct evidence is, if her evidence is, "I saw it happen," that's not actual proof of anything. Especially not coming from anyone associated with that s***-meister Avenatti.
Like, if she has a videotape of it, that would be awesome. If she's saying she has a videotape, absolutely send someone to interview her if it's qualudes or any other pill. If it's alcohol, we called that, "Jungle Juice," and pretty much everyone knew that's the concoction on the table...at least where I come from. Everybody knew, don't drink, "The punch," unless you want to get hammered. I don't think anybody was trying to rape anyone in our case, some people just like Kool-Aid. I don't. I usually drank bourbon or rye straight at these parties, but sometimes I'd switch to beer or this thing called Smirnoff Triple Black I liked at the time.
I seriously hope, "Spiking the punch," is not seen as evidence unless it's with some kind of drug. That would just be silly.
You keep saying that none of this is provable.
How do you think investigations worked before forensic and video/audio technology?
A large number of crimes are still solved with old fashioned police work.
Of course there’s not going to be any video or physical evidence, and of course her accusation alone isn’t enough to make a determination.
But if 10 other people who were at those parties and say Kav did creepy sh*t, and Ford gives credible testimony with no other ulterior motives ..... he is probably guilty. Maybe not to the level of proof of criminal charges (although people have gone to jail with much less evidence), but certainly to the level of losing a SCOTUS appointment, which IMO should be a lower burden of proof.
They can't even find one person that was actually at this so called party, not even her best friend will back her up. Then again, according to Ford, she left her friend behind to get raped.Quote: gamerfreakYou keep saying that none of this is provable.
How do you think investigations worked before forensic and video/audio technology?
A large number of crimes are still solved with old fashioned police work.
Of course there’s not going to be any video or physical evidence, and of course her accusation alone isn’t enough to make a determination.
But if 10 other people who were at those parties and say Kav did creepy sh*t, and Ford gives credible testimony with no other ulterior motives ..... he is probably guilty. Maybe not to the level of proof of criminal charges (although people have gone to jail with much less evidence), but certainly to the level of losing a SCOTUS appointment, which IMO should be a lower burden of proof.
Quote: AxelWolfThey can't even find one person that was actually at this so called party, not even her best friend will back her up. Then again, according to Ford, she left her friend behind to get raped.
I doubt many people are going to remember exact dates and times of parties 30 years ago. I couldn’t tell you the dates and times of parties I went to this year.
I am talking about people who knew Kavanaugh during highschool/college who would corroborate a pattern of rapey behavior.
If the FBI is given the time and resrouces they need to do such interviews, and no one ever saw him do anything like what Ford is claiming, I’m of course 100% fine with that.
My only point is that you do not need physical evidence or eyewitnesses of that one specific event to make a determination of whether or not the accusation is credible for the purposes of a SCOTUS appointment.
Quote: gamerfreak
How do you think investigations worked before forensic and video/audio technology?
A large number of crimes are still solved with old fashioned police work.
.
Maybe someone can refute this as I am not a lawyer, but the testimony of 1 person under our law can be enough to convict another person. That is the minimum standard, You just need to convince the judge or jury.
Quote: gamerfreak
How do you think investigations worked before forensic and video/audio technology?
I think they generally didn’t investigate allegations that were three decades old for lack of any physical evidence.
Again, what I would look at as corroborating evidence is give me at least a place that an alleged event happened, which Ramirez actually does. People can then say or not say, “I remember this event happening at this place,” and that would be more than nothing.
Saying that he spiked the punch somewhere, (which now Swetnick says she didn’t see him do, she just saw him pass out cups) doesn’t do anything to prove a particular event took place with a particular person on a particular (or non-specific) night.
It’s thirty years ago, anybody can say they saw him do something anywhere and it’s not like they’d ever face charges, quite frankly, I’m surprised you don’t have more people making claims along those lines. I’m not surprised that the claim that someone actually witnessed him spike the punch with Qualudes comes from someone associated with Avenatti.
Quote:A large number of crimes are still solved with old fashioned police work.
Yeah, and Blasey Ford’s allegation or any one of the more than ten incidents Swetnick claims happened could have been solved with old fashioned police work:
A. If they took place.
AND:
B. If they were reported anywhere near the time they happened.
Quote:Of course there’s not going to be any video or physical evidence, and of course her accusation alone isn’t enough to make a determination.
We agree on this much.
Quote:But if 10 other people who were at those parties and say Kav did creepy sh*t, and Ford gives credible testimony with no other ulterior motives ..... he is probably guilty. Maybe not to the level of proof of criminal charges (although people have gone to jail with much less evidence), but certainly to the level of losing a SCOTUS appointment, which IMO should be a lower burden of proof.
What’s the magic number of people to make a claim along those lines? Is it ten? If you set a hard number for the number of claims you’d have to get to, I bet they find a way there.
Honestly, the best thing I can think anyone has on him right now is he quite probably (99.99999999%) lied about having never drank to the point of blacking out. That doesn’t make him an attempted rapist, even when he is trashed, but it would be something he lied about in his testimony.
Quite frankly, he probably should have been more forthright about his drinking. Again, some Democrats would take that as stone cold proof of Blasey Ford’s claims, even though one really does nothing to prove the other, but he’s not really trying to satisfy the Democrats anyway. He just needs one Republican, or fewer, to vote against him.
Quote: TigerWu
Sorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk.Quote: WizardPersonal insult. Three-day suspension.
I see no personal insult in TigerWu's message. Instead of replying in an in-your-face or direct confrontational manner, TigerWu's reply was artful, witty and non-confrontational, and should be encouraged.
P.S.
The trio RS, RogerKint, MaxPen normally like/recommend posts whenever someone is placed on suspension. IMO, counterpoint or counter argument, whether intelligent or not, should be made instead of "like/recommend" post or raising the "insult" flag.
Quote: gamerfreakI doubt many people are going to remember exact dates and times of parties 30 years ago. I couldn’t tell you the dates and times of parties I went to this year.
I can agree with that, but nothing traumatic happened to me at any parties I went to. I’ve not been to any parties this year other than a few little kids’ birthday parties, but I mean going back to high school and college.
The one thing that I can say about high school and college parties is that I remember where they physically took place. That’s not to say I remember every individual event that could have possibly occurred, but of the ones I do remember, I could tell you where they happened.
I can look back on nights of drinking and, if anything memorable did take place, I can tell you where it happened. Let’s say some friends and I were instead running around drinking outside, tell me who I was with and I could tell you where we went just based on, “Oh yeah, if that was J—, B——, B—-, T—— and M—-,” that’s the time we drank, I acquiesced to go to the graveyard and do, “Ghost hunting,” with those clowns and then we swam in the creek before going back to J/—‘s house.”
Anyway, I don’t have any issue with not remembering dates and times...but place?
Also, if she called for a ride home that night, wouldn’t she have to tell the person where to pick her up?
Again, overall I tend to lean toward Blasey Ford’s side to the extent that something happened. I’m just borderline incredulous that she can’t remember where, particularly if she only had one drink.
Quote:I am talking about people who knew Kavanaugh during highschool/college who would corroborate a pattern of rapey behavior.
People can say what they want to say. We’re just going to disagree on this one. In my view, what people say, other than directly witnessing the event in question, corroborates nothing three decades after the fact.
You’re making it sound like it’s literally impossible for any person to lie. Like, someone couldn’t say they saw homeboy spike the punch once and be lying. Is the FBI giving these people a truth serum?
Quote:If the FBI is given the time and resrouces they need to do such interviews, and no one ever saw him do anything like what Ford is claiming, I’m of course 100% fine with that.
So, as long as literally not one person speaks out against him, you’re good. Seems like a fair standard. /sarcasm
Quote:My only point is that you do not need physical evidence or eyewitnesses of that one specific event to make a determination of whether or not the accusation is credible for the purposes of a SCOTUS appointment.
I don’t recall what the set standards for a SCOTUS appointment are, so I can’t say for sure. I don’t recall there being any codified standards, so it seems like kind of a moving target.
Gorsuch apparently didn’t meet the standards for the, “Purposes of a SCOTUS appointment,” in the eyes of 46 Senators. That’s kind of my point. I’m pretty much done believing anything any Senator on either side says about anything and I no longer accept that any Senator from either side is genuine about anything.
I’m not a #VoteThemOut proponent, though, because the replacements would just be the same thing all over again.
Quote: Mission146
Gorsuch apparently didn’t meet the standards for the, “Purposes of a SCOTUS appointment,” in the eyes of 46 Senators. That’s kind of my point. I’m pretty much done believing anything any Senator on either side says about anything and I no longer accept that any Senator from either side is genuine about anything.
This! Every single one of these people are partisan hacks. Bear in mind that Antonin Scalia, long considered one of the most conservative voices of the court was confirmed 98-0. Why? He was qualified. Gorsuch was qualified. They choice to be partisan instead of doing their job.
And please, before you start with the but but Garland. I can admit that was fully jacked up and wrong.
In his 1997 memoir, Judge wrote that he worked at Safeway.
Ford may have read it only recently.
After changing the year of the alleged attack three times, and changing her age at the time the attack from late teens to fifteen, Ford told Mitchell she is now sure of the year of the assault because she saw Judge working at Safeway six weeks later.
It took her thirty-six years to figure this out?
She said she was with her mother at Safeway, but conveniently removes her mother as a witness, by saying they went through separate doors.
Responding to Sen. Durbin: WAPO
“I was going to the Potomac Village Safeway, this is the one on the corner of Falls and River Road,” she said. “And I was with my mother and I was a teenager, so I wanted her to go in one door and me the other. I chose the wrong door because the door I chose was the one where Mark Judge — it looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts.”
Then, strangely -
“I said hello to him, and his face was white and very uncomfortable saying hello back ...”
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThis! Every single one of these people are partisan hacks. Bear in mind that Antonin Scalia, long considered one of the most conservative voices of the court was confirmed 98-0. Why? He was qualified. Gorsuch was qualified. They choice to be partisan instead of doing their job.
And please, before you start with the but but Garland. I can admit that was fully jacked up and wrong.
This! I 100% agree, there was absolutely no reason Garland shouldn’t have went to vote and been confirmed aside from partisanism.
They make a far right
I was a typical kid, got into my share of fights and scrapes
As you get bigger and mature, you leave that behind
Starting a fight as a young adult is extremely immature and criminal
Kav is really starting to totally disgust me
Last fight I was in, I was probably 9 or 10 years old
As an adult, you can do permanent damage
We had a fight at the local steak and shake.
HS football player hits another student , 1 punch homicide, 2 families devastated as 1 dies and the other goes to prison
Quote: rxwineIt might seem there are ridiculous standards for SC, but voters get to remedy the other 2 branches every 2,4, or 6 years if they want. i'd much rather they fight over the fitness process actively for too long than sit on their hands for too long doing nothing about a vacancy.
That’s what I’d really like to have a national discussion on: Should SCOTUS appointments be lifetime? Should SCOTUS not be an elected position?
Quote:Maybe someone can refute this as I am not a lawyer, but the testimony of 1 person under our law can be enough to convict another person. That is the minimum standard, You just need to convince the judge or jury.
If the testimony of one person is enough to convince, “Beyond a reasonable doubt,” I guess. I think that person would probably need to be an eyewitness, though and there’d almost have to be some other evidence.
I also don’t know how good it is that you merely need to, “Convince,” because you look at these three things:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Whatever you can convince somebody of.
I like the top two better for a legal standard.
Quote: darkozTwo wrongs dont make a right
They make a far right
Shouldn't it be a far left? I mean the first wrong was Garland, then what they did to Gorsuch was the second wrong. So it made the far left.
Damn it, it is not fun trying to rearrange jokes.
Quote: Mission146That’s what I’d really like to have a national discussion on: Should SCOTUS appointments be lifetime? Should SCOTUS not be an elected position?
Discuss all you want, it is really just fantasy talk. I don't say this to belittle the discussion, I just try to start rooted in reality. To change the SCOTUS term would take a constitutional amendment, and as my dad would say...aint gonna happen bubba.
Quote: Mission146That’s what I’d really like to have a national discussion on: Should SCOTUS appointments be lifetime? Should SCOTUS not be an elected position?
If the testimony of one person is enough to convince, “Beyond a reasonable doubt,” I guess. I think that person would probably need to be an eyewitness, though and there’d almost have to be some other evidence.
I also don’t know how good it is that you merely need to, “Convince,” because you look at these three things:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Whatever you can convince somebody of.
I like the top two better for a legal standard.
Proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt is not proof beyond ALL doubt
For most of this countries history there was not really such a thing (like DNA and video evidence)
Even then it is realy what you can convince people of. Evidence someone shot somebody is not evidence of guilt either. Self-defence or insanity can get you off
Quote: VCUSkyhawkYou don't think implying that somebody is either so stupid they are either an imbecile or childlike is an insult?
Are you referencing this quote:
Quote: TigerWu
Sorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk.
Background:
TigerWu had written a long response.
Fleaswatter replied "All I can say is, YAWN"
TigerWu then responsed: "Sorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk."
Here is my take:
Adult do drink milk, napping is good way to rest.
So what's wrong with encouraging a "yawning" someone to read a long post by providing a good advice?
I cannot read what is on TigerWu's mind nor do I know his/her intent. But I certainly don't see how it can interpreted as implying someone is stupid, imbecile or childlike. It is artful way to avoid in-your-face or direct confrontation...
Quote: 777Are you referencing this quote:
I cannot read what is on TigerWu's mind nor do I know his/her intent. But I certainly don't see how it can interpreted as implying someone is stupid, imbecile or childlike. It is artful way to avoid in-your-face or direct confrontation...
"I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once." - Implication of being too dumb.
"finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk." - Implication of being childlike.
Come on man.
Quote: VCUSkyhawk"I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once." - Implication of being too dumb.
"finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk." - Implication of being childlike.
Come on man.
Background:
TigerWu had written a long response.
Fleaswatter replied "All I can say is, YAWN"
TigerWu then responsed: "Sorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk."
Here is my take:
Adult do drink milk, napping is good way to rest.
So what's wrong with encouraging a "yawning" someone to read a long post by providing a good advice?
I cannot read what is on TigerWu's mind nor do I know his/her intent. But I certainly don't see how it can interpreted as implying someone is stupid, imbecile or childlike. It is artful way to avoid in-your-face or direct confrontation.
Come on man.
Quote: 777Background:
TigerWu had written a long response.
Fleaswatter replied "All I can say is, YAWN"
TigerWu then responsed: "Sorry, I didn't realize that's too many words for you to read all at once. Maybe come back and finish it after you've had a nap and nice warm bottle of milk."
Here is my take:
Adult do drink milk, napping is good way to rest.
So what's wrong with encouraging a "yawning" someone to read a long post by providing a good advice?
I cannot read what is on TigerWu's mind nor do I know his/her intent. But I certainly don't see how it can interpreted as implying someone is stupid, imbecile or childlike. It is artful way to avoid in-your-face or direct confrontation.
Come on man.
LOL...ok buddy. Are you a lawyer by trade?
Quote: RogerKintAre you hurt or offended when people like posts you don't agree with? Write your congressman and vote yes on proposition 9. Remove the "thank you" button for our future... and more importantly, for our children's future.
#MWOVGA
Quote: darkozProof beyond a REASONABLE doubt is not proof beyond ALL doubt
For most of this countries history there was not really such a thing (like DNA and video evidence)
Even then it is realy what you can convince people of. Evidence someone shot somebody is not evidence of guilt either. Self-defence or insanity can get you off
I just like it when words have meaning. If we have this, “Corroborating evidence,” but we don’t have anybody claiming to have witnessed anything directly, there’s your reasonable doubt. If your witnesses (in Blasey Ford’s case) say they remember no such event, your eyewitness denies it and the witness who one would think would be most favorable to her denies both of them and Kavanaugh ever being at the same party...there’s your reasonable doubt.
If nobody except Ramirez specifically remembers her alleged incident...there’s your reasonable doubt.
These are things that, had they been reported and the cops show up that night, the next day or maybe a week later, you don’t have, “I do not recall.”
Go back to Blasey Ford. If the cops come and question people the next day, people say Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford and Judge are all in the room together and then next thing you know Blasey Ford disappears from the place. Then, Blasey Ford has any bruising or Kavanaugh has defensive wounds caused by Blasey Ford...boom...dead to rights.
I don’t see how statements as to other alleged events which are themselves unprovable and that are only tangenitally related 35 years into the future proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I honestly don’t know how it rises to the level of being corroborating evidence.
The bar fight is something. At least there’s a police report. Maybe being in some way involved in a bar fight is disqualifying...I guess you could make the argument. I’ll never be on the SCOTUS, I can tell you that, but I obviously wasn’t going to be anyway.
Civil law calls for a a very different standard.
This isn't a criminal case.
Quote: billryanProof beyond a resonable doubt is the standard used for criminal cases. No where else.
Civil law calls for a a very different standard.
This isn't a criminal case.
The standard for civil law is guilt based on a preponderance of the evidence.
As to the actual events in question, there has been exactly zero by way of direct evidence against Kavanaugh unless you count Blasey Ford’s and Ramirez testimony/statements themselves. No other evidence as to those events. I don’t think Swetnick’s claims even merit discussion.
Quote: Mission146The standard for civil law is guilt based on a preponderance of the evidence.
As to the actual events in question, there has been exactly zero by way of direct evidence against Kavanaugh. At least, as relates Blasey Ford and Ramirez. I don’t think Swetnick’s claims even merit discussion.
It is based on what a reasonable person would conclude. One witness answered every question put to them and offered to aid an investigation. The other didn't answer, evaded and attacked the Senators.
What does a reasonable person conclude?
Quote: VCUSkyhawkLOL...ok buddy. Are you a lawyer by trade?
This is first time ever -- here or in any internet forum, I am raising a "personal insult" flag.
WoV Admin, I'm deeply insulted by VCUSkyhawk's comment implying that I'm a lawyer.
Quote: billryanProof beyond a resonable doubt is the standard used for criminal cases. No where else.
Civil law calls for a a very different standard.
This isn't a criminal case.
It is neither a criminal case, nor a civil case.
It is a job interview in an adversary process where the "reasonable suspicion/person" standard is the norm, and should be used.
I'm o.k. with the ""reasonable suspicion/person" standard, and I sincerely hope the "which side is your side" standard will not be used in this Kavanaugh's job interview.
Quote: billryanIt is based on what a reasonable person would conclude. One witness answered every question put to them and offered to aid an investigation. The other didn't answer, evaded and attacked the Senators.
What does a reasonable person conclude?
That Kavanaugh is kind of an @$$hole? He’s a politician, so I already had him pegged as an @$$hole. Doesn’t necessarily make him an attempted rapist. I’m definitely an @$$hole, but if anybody were to ever accuse me of attempted rape, they’d be lying.
However, “He said, she said,” regardless of the decorum of the he and the she, doesn’t prove anything in and of itself.
Also also, if only one person says a specific event happened and everyone else associated therewith denies it ever taking place or the parties ever being in the same place at the same time...I think in a court proceeding, your reasonable person standard favors the defendant.
Quote: Mission146Also, if you had six people on a civil jury for this one, the only way the jury doesn’t get hung are if all six have the same political registration.
Also also, if only one person says a specific event happened and everyone else associated therewith denies it ever taking place or the parties ever being in the same place at the same time...I think in a court proceeding, your reasonable person standard favors the defendant.
Jeez I wish that were true
I remember this case where a guy was locked up based on a witness ID. He had everyone stating he was innocent. He even had a baseball ticket stub to show he had an alibi
The cops just said it was cover and he could have left the game and committed the crime
It took video of him in the stands to get him off
Eyewitness testimony is many times considered even better than other evidentiary material in court cases
Quote: Mission146Also, if you had six people on a civil jury for this one, the only way the jury doesn’t get hung is if all six have the same political registration.
Also also, if only one person says a specific event happened and everyone else associated therewith denies it ever taking place or the parties ever being in the same place at the same time...I think in a court proceeding, your reasonable person standard favors the defendant.
Civil juries don't require unanimous juries. Only criminal cases do. You are continuing to try to use the wrong standards. Purposely, it seems.
Quote: darkozJeez I wish that were true
You and me both.
Quote:I remember this case where a guy was locked up based on a witness ID. He had everyone stating he was innocent. He even had a baseball ticket stub to show he had an alibi
The cops just said it was cover and he could have left the game and committed the crime
It took video of him in the stands to get him off
Eyewitness testimony is many times considered even better than other evidentiary material in court cases
Well, the problem here is that the only eyewitness testimony comes from the accuser herself. The other supposed eyewitness denies the event took place. The other witness who was supposedly at the scene says the accused, the accuser, the eyewitness and herself were never all in the same place at the same time.
I’ve got to tell you, it wouldn’t look promising at all even in a civil suit. When your named eyewitness makes statements to the contrary, and your named witnesses are the only direct evidence you have...it just doesn’t look promising.
Anyway, it’s just another example of cops, lawyers, judges, politicians doing things in a results-oriented way, meaning your example.
It might end up being an important date.
Kavanaugh has been PROVEN to have lied to Congress in 2004 and 2006. He has been PROVEN to have lied to Congress in 2018. Both are disqualifying for the SCOTUS. Period.
There are a hundred other qualified candidates for the SCOTUS that aren't PROVEN liars. Pick one and let's move on.
Quote: billryanCivil juries don't require unanimous juries. Only criminal cases do. You are continuing to try to use the wrong standards. Purposely, it seems.
Not purposely, I’m not a lawyer. I didn’t research the ins and outs of civil juries, I just know they don’t have to have twelve people. Is it majority rule?
That would be a good standard. Let’s just have a national vote on whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty. Or, we could have a national vote for SCOTUS and Kavanaugh would be demolished, then.
How about, "it takes 3 lefts to make one right''?Quote: VCUSkyhawkShouldn't it be a far left? I mean the first wrong was Garland, then what they did to Gorsuch was the second wrong. So it made the far left.
Damn it, it is not fun trying to rearrange jokes.
Quote: petroglyphHow about, "it takes 3 lefts to make one right''?
Whoever is right has already left
Quote: Mission146You and me both.
Well, the problem here is that the only eyewitness testimony comes from the accuser herself. The other supposed eyewitness denies the event took place. The other witness who was supposedly at the scene says the accused, the accuser, the eyewitness and herself were never all in the same place at the same time.
I’ve got to tell you, it wouldn’t look promising at all even in a civil suit. When your named eyewitness makes statements to the contrary, and your named witnesses are the only direct evidence you have...it just doesn’t look promising.
Anyway, it’s just another example of cops, lawyers, judges, politicians doing things in a results-oriented way, meaning your example.
This is incorrect. One witness doesn't remember it, but says she believes Dr Ford story.
Barts key witness wrote a book about how tucked up he was all through high school and his many lost days and nights. I can understand why he fled to avoid talking to investigators.
On one side, we have people begging to be interviewed under oath, on the other side,the key witness for Bart rented a beach house under a fake name to avoid answering questions.
Quote: darkozWhoever is right has already left
The Left is never right?
Quote: billryanThis is incorrect. One witness doesn't remember it, but says she believes Dr Ford story.
Oh, okay. Well, I don’t remember it, because I wasn’t born yet, but I believe something along the lines of Ford’s story happened. WGAF?
If you don’t remember it, then it’s not corroborating evidence. Does a person’s inability to recollect something either happening or not happening mean it definitely happened? That’s a weird definition of corroborating evidence.
In fact, if it didn’t happen, that would definitely explain her inability to recollect it.
Quote:Barts key witness wrote a book about how tucked up he was all through high school and his many lost days and nights. I can understand why he fled to avoid talking to investigators.
On one side, we have people begging to be interviewed under oath, on the other side,the key witness for Bart rented a beach house under a fake name to avoid answering questions.
I agree with that 100%. I’m also 99.999999% confident he lied in his testimony about never being blackout drunk. I disagree that means he tried to rape somebody.
Why do they need to beg to be questioned? This story is hot as Hell! If you have proof, just go to MSNBC and be like, “Here’s my proof,” and you’ll be on at six o clock. Why does Swetnick need to be questioned by the FBI to come out with her, “Evidence.” Why does the person in Florida? I say, quit being dodgy, go public and if the FBI feels like you’re offering sufficient evidence, they’ll be along to question you in short order.
As far as Judge, Blasey Ford’s allegations put him at the scene of an attempted rape. Had charges been filed at the time, it may well have been enough to make him an accessory. And you’re surprised he doesn’t want to talk to anyone unless he has no other choice? Well, you said you’re not surprised. I don’t think anyone should be surprised.
It’s a shame nobody was so eager to talk at the time these events allegedly happened. Assuming Kavanaugh wouldn’t have been convicted of something eventually, you’d at least possibly have a police report that an incident took place. There’s your corroborating evidence. Hell, we’d probably even have a place, date and approximate time.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkThe Left is never right?
The Left is never Right
But the Right is always Wrong
What is a Right-wing AP card counter?
Someone who is always Wonging
Quote: Mission146People can say what they want to say. We’re just going to disagree on this one. In my view, what people say, other than directly witnessing the event in question, corroborates nothing three decades after the fact.
So if there’s not an eyewitness to a crime, it’s impossible to investigate?
I am talking about establishing a pattern of behavior. Things like this are rarely a 1-off event. If Ford’s accusation is true, is very likely other people witnessed similar behavior from Kavanaugh.
If you have those other people saying there was other occasions where he got sexually aggressive, that adds significant credibility to Ford’s testimony.
Quote: Mission146You’re making it sound like it’s literally impossible for any person to lie. Like, someone couldn’t say they saw homeboy spike the punch once and be lying. Is the FBI giving these people a truth serum?
It’s the job of the people conducting the investigation to make a determination of the validity of the information they receive and the background of the person they receive it from.
Most people aren’t going to lie to an FBI agent unless they have motive to do so.
Information from a crackhead is going to be less reliable than someone with a PhD.
It’s not a perfect process, but it’s about collecting as much information as possible and to make a probabilistic determination.
Quote: Mission146So, as long as literally not one person speaks out against him, you’re good. Seems like a fair standard. /sarcasm
That’s not what I said.
If a through investigation yields no other credible information that corroborates Ford’s story, then I am fine.
I am not sure 1 week is enough time for such an investigation.
Quote: Mission146Oh, okay. Well, I don’t remember it, because I wasn’t born yet, but I believe something along the lines of Ford’s story happened. WGAF?
If you don’t remember it, then it’s not corroborating evidence. Does a person’s inability to recollect something either happening or not happening mean it definitely happened? That’s a weird definition of corroborating evidence.
In fact, if it didn’t happen, that would definitely explain her inability to recollect it.
I agree with that 100%. I’m also 99.999999% confident he lied in his testimony about never being blackout drunk. I disagree that means he tried to rape somebody.
Why do they need to beg to be questioned? This story is hot as Hell! If you have proof, just go to MSNBC and be like, “Here’s my proof,” and you’ll be on at six o clock. Why does Swetnick need to be questioned by the FBI to come out with her, “Evidence.” Why does the person in Florida? I say, quit being dodgy, go public and if the FBI feels like you’re offering sufficient evidence, they’ll be along to question you in short order.
As far as Judge, Blasey Ford’s allegations put him at the scene of an attempted rape. Had charges been filed at the time, it may well have been enough to make him an accessory. And you’re surprised he doesn’t want to talk to anyone unless he has no other choice? Well, you said you’re not surprised. I don’t think anyone should be surprised.
It’s a shame nobody was so eager to talk at the time these events allegedly happened. Assuming Kavanaugh wouldn’t have been convicted of something eventually, you’d at least possibly have a police report that an incident took place. There’s your corroborating evidence. Hell, we’d probably even have a place, date and approximate time.
First you wrongly stated that they denied the incident occurred, then it's well they don't say it happened so that means it didn't.
If someone goes public, you decry them for not talking to the right people. When someone says I have something I'd like to discuss it with the FBI, you say why not go public.
You say you are 99.99 percent convinced he lied. Even trump says if he lied to Congress she shouldn't get in. I'm trying to follow your logic here, but doesn't this mean you should be 99.9% against him, or does lying under oath not bother you?
Forget the he said, she said. Do you believe he lied, under oath, to Congress?
