Why? For example, after collecting enough interview evidence to make it clear something happened, all they have to do is give Judge immunity in return for his testimony...
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
If this event occurred last weekend...it would be a difficult criminal case.
That it occurred 36 years ago... if this was between "regular" citizens Ford would be hard-pressed to find a police officer that would even take her report down on paper. And the State AG sure as hell would never be involved.
You seem to have gone over the ledge into crazy land on this issue. Immunity to Judge? LOL.
Keyboard warrior act...oh, the irony.
I keep my warrior-ing to the confines of the Rivals network.
For her to think what happened wouldn’t happen is monumentally stupid on her part.
To be fair, a whole host of people have gone stark raving mad over this whole mess.
https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/
Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide.
....
Research illustrates that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and their memories can be easily contaminated.
Hundreds of scientific studies (particularly in the last three decades) have affirmed that eyewitness identification is often inaccurate and that it can be made more accurate by implementing specific identification reforms.
Time is a real factor here. I very much think that something happened to Ford, she at least believes so or she probably would not have passed the lie detector test. Good and accurate eyewitness testimony, whether direct or through hearsay, is going to be really hard to come across this far out though.....
Research illustrates that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. In eyewitness identifications, witness memory is impacted by a variety of factors that occur from the time of the crime onwards, and their memories can be easily contaminated.
Hundreds of scientific studies (particularly in the last three decades) have affirmed that eyewitness identification is often inaccurate and that it can be made more accurate by implementing specific identification reforms.
One small area where I agree with Jeb of a thousand names, is that there does need to be an effort to get women to come forward ASAP when something happens. Even in the article Thyrsis posted the other night, that girl was able to have a bunch of evidence collected in her favor. That was not a he said and she said, it was a "that girl was raped and it appears protecting the sports team was more important than protecting her" type of situation. Which is a whole other discussion about how insane this country can be about athletics. That also played a part in the Pierre Pierce situation. I really feel for that young lady because the way that town treated her is a travesty. However, by coming forth right away, I think there is no doubt that she was raped. None. If she had waited 10 years there would be no physical exam, no examination of the site where her clothes were found, no talk with the witnesses right after it happened, etc.
There are other more troubling lessons in that case but one thing that does strike me is to get that evidence collected and get your allegation out.
On a positive note, 1300 posts in and Godwin's law has yet to be invoked.
I think.
So, you are the guy in early January who says, "at least we haven't had a big snowstorm yet". And you know, Hitler was that kind of guy too.
Marvin, for years you have been the most reasoned poster on this board. Are you into the sauce tonight? Jeepers, this issue isn't Hitleresque.
Looks as if there will likely be testimony of some sort:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-on-testimony-next-week/ar-AAAolH2?li=BBnb7Kz
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-on-testimony-next-week/ar-AAAolH2?li=BBnb7Kz
Hill sent a letter to the Committee a matter of days before the vote was scheduled to be taken. Biden called the WH Counsel, who informed Bush, and Bush directed the FBI to REOPEN the background check... (EXACTLY what Ford is ASKING FOR)
"But Senate Democrats aren’t asking for a criminal investigation. They want the FBI to reopen Kavanaugh’s background check.
Grassley has shut that avenue down too, though. On Tuesday, Grassley told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in no uncertain terms that the “FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh is closed” and that the “FBI is not doing any further investigation.”
Grassley’s correct — the FBI’s background investigation is closed. But there’s nothing to stop the FBI from reopening or adding to it.
In fact, in 1991, the agency did just that, at the request of then-President George H.W. Bush, when Anita Hill made sexual harassment allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The FBI investigated and wrote a report that eventually led the White House to declare that Hill’s allegations were unfounded.
Back then, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — who was and still is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — called it “the very right thing to do.”
That’s in stark contrast to the tweet his office posted on Tuesday claiming that the “FBI does not do investigations like this” and that the “responsibility falls to us.”
So what’s different with the Kavanaugh case? Nothing. Except that Republicans are adamant about getting their nominee through the process quickly — and Donald Trump doesn’t look like he’s about to ask for an FBI investigation anytime soon."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/20/17879284/democrats-fbi-investigation-kavanaugh
I think you are missing the joke referring to Godwin's Law.
I googled it. Flat out hilarious You the man.
More like you still haven't come to understand, from the first post of this thread, why the Dems have not jumped the shark. Forget all you've read, let me simplify this for you.
1. The Republicans, who control Congress and the Presidency, are about to appoint a Supreme Court justice who has been accused of attempted rape.
2. The Republicans, who control Congress and the Presidency, are refusing to investigate this allegation.
3. It may be true that the only avenue for the American people to find out about this allegation is via the Maryland attorney general's office.
4. If so, it stands to reason that it's in the interest of the American people for the Maryland AG's office to investigate this allegation.
Now I ask you, how is it any crazier for the Maryland AG's office to investigate this than the Senate or the FBI, if they have the legal prerogative to do so? I get that you suspect it would be for political reasons, but your cynical suspicions notwithstanding, there is a rational reason to not have a sitting Supreme Court justice who both is a liar and was a sexual attacker, as alleged.
As far as I can tell, the entire basis for your "ledge" comment is that in your opinion it's a priori impossible to gather any incriminating evidence.
You seem to have spent half the day trolling the internets. Boss on board with that?
See the RBG meme came from a Republican congressman. Wonder why they have a gender gap? That’s going to get worse in November.
three things Zeke:
1. It is a fact that men are falsely accused of raping women;
2. A lie detector is unreliable because if a person believes what they are saying is true, even if its not, it will not register as a as a false statement;
3. The accuser has never stated sufficient facts to support a charge of attempted rape, an assault yes, attempted rape no.
Shows two things, conservative men and women are brain-damaged and if his appointment doesn't go through, more GOP voters in November.
~~~~
In other news:
Democrats will investigate Kavanaugh as soon as they hold the gavel in either the Senate or the House.
Last edited:
Lol. As I said you jumped in without reading. I posted the stats on false rape accusations. They are 2-10%. Up to 60 % of rape go unreported. Well aware of lie detectors. Let’s have Kavanaugh take one. K? I work on campus on a sexual abuse/ rape awareness committe. Go on...
You are welcome. I am not normally the typo police, but I felt the need to point out the bad form of claiming something is over somebody's head with a glaring error right there. Mote and beam stuff, and all.
Last edited:
Evangelical leaders are threatening loss of votes in November if Kavanaugh doesn't get rammed through the Senate like a frenzied teenage rapist with raging hormones.
“If Republicans were to fail to defend and confirm such an obviously and eminently qualified and decent nominee,” Mr. Reed added, “then it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November.”
Worried their chance to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court could slip away, a growing number of evangelical and anti-abortion leaders are expressing frustration that Senate Republicans and the White House are not protecting Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh more forcefully from a sexual assault allegation and warning that conservative voters may stay home in November if his nomination falls apart.
“One of the political costs of failing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is likely the loss of the United States Senate,” said Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition who is in frequent contact with the White House.
The turnout may be especially low among those who are turned on by white teenage males who rape girls, such as faith-based voters:“One of the political costs of failing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is likely the loss of the United States Senate,” said Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition who is in frequent contact with the White House.
“If Republicans were to fail to defend and confirm such an obviously and eminently qualified and decent nominee,” Mr. Reed added, “then it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November.”
I read the linked story/poll and did not see "Independents" mentioned at all. Perhaps I missed it- if so could you quote it...
On the other hand the NBC/ WSJ poll is explicit in pointing out that Kavanaugh losing points with "Independent men" is a prime factor in his popularity overall going underwater. And btw, the NBC poll asks the question of whether he should be confirmed, but does not address whether or not they found the accusation "credible".
Presumably that is a factor due to the timing of the poll, but I don't think they specifically asked that question... From the NBC poll story...
This is the first time in the NBC/WSJ poll — dating back to John Roberts’ nomination in 2005 — that a Supreme Court nominee has been underwater on this confirmation question. (Harriet Miers, whose nomination was ultimately withdrawn, was above water at 27 percent support, 21 percent oppose in the October 2005 survey).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua?CMP=share_btn_tw
I increasingly think people are largely hard-wired into two groups with very different ways of seeing the world. One of those groups would tend to find this story creepy and possibly more troubling than the claim of the current accuser. The other group would tend to think this story is silly and says nothing questionable about Kavanaugh whatsoever.
That's not even a criticism of anyone.
Monday is the day scheduled for Ford's appearance before the Senate committee or for a private interview by staff. What better way to set off another round of delays than by other repressed memories being jogged free. If that happens we'll know for sure that King Miranda just got her Facebook post out of sync.
He's like me sitting on a bar stool looking at a platter of hot wings. The doctor says, don't eat them. The wife says, don't eat them. I say, I'm not gonna eat them.
But in the end I eat them
Trump's gotta Trump.
Dr. Ford is not going to testify Monday, next week, or at all. Her lawyers will make all these demands and keep going back and forth, never agreeing to conditions for her testimony. Their aim is to make the GOP get frustrated and proceed with no testimony from her. Then the Dems will scream bloody murder "they wouldn't even let her testify!" They'll use that to try to drive voter turnout for midterms. This is all a game that's being played.
Ford now saying she will testify, but not Monday. She also doesn’t want to answer questions from attorneys, nor does she want Kavanaugh in the room.
None of that seems unreasonable.
The biggest problem I have is that she wants Kavanaugh to testify first. How in the heck is the accused supposed to testify before the accuser? Especially since we still haven’t seen the unredacted letter.
None of that seems unreasonable.
The biggest problem I have is that she wants Kavanaugh to testify first. How in the heck is the accused supposed to testify before the accuser? Especially since we still haven’t seen the unredacted letter.
Similar threads
