nerdmann
5 years ago




Senator Lindsey Graham:
"When we are arrested for violently overthrowing the US government on Sept 11, 2001 and replacing it with a military dictatorship, will you allow us to be black bagged to Gitmo, tortured and executed for high treason?"

Judge Brett Kavanaugh: "Yes Senator, I will."
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
nerdmann
5 years ago
Looks like Grassley has referred a false accuser for prosecution . Don't worry, Sessions never does anything.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
dyeah_gb
5 years ago





Senator Lindsey Graham:
"When we are arrested for violently overthrowing the US government on Sept 11, 2001 and replacing it with a military dictatorship, will you allow us to be black bagged to Gitmo, tortured and executed for high treason?"

Judge Brett Kavanaugh: "Yes Senator, I will."

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Interesting video given I could not watch the entire (original) confirmation hearing. How does the text relate?
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - R. Feynman
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
5 years ago
How can someone be outraged that Kavanaugh based solely on allegations must go back to his DC circuit job; and then applaud an arrestee solely on allegations being tortured and being denied Habeas Corpus forever?

You either stand for liberty and our system of justice or you don’t. There is no effing middle ground! Don’t let those Koch Bros FUCK with your minds.

Do you know what Bin Laden’s plan was? He said, it was to panic the people so they would allow their G to remove their liberties. I think Bin Laden was be pleased that he created Gitmo.
Zero2Cool
5 years ago
The thing I don't understand how some can say they know the facts, when they absolutely don't because it's impossible for them to. I just don't get these topics of discussion. It's not something joyous or fun or exciting, it's just rage inducing and anger of people who think they know more than someone else.

UserPostedImage
Cheesey
5 years ago
That’s so true, Zero. I stated over and over that none of us know who is telling the truth.is all guessing on our part.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
5 years ago

A question that bugged me was:”did you ever drink during the week? YES OR NO!”
How do you answer that? Of COURSE he did at some time. But the questioner didn’t want any details, Just “yes or no”. That says a lot as far as, do they REALLY want the truth? Or do they just want more to try to make the guy look guilty.
And how much did the accuser drink on the night in question? Did she do things she wanted to, then blame the guy so she wouldn’t feel like a tramp? It DOES happen, you know.

I’m just bringing up possibilities that could be true.

Originally Posted by: Cheesey 



When democrats question how much Kavanaugh drinks they're not actually interested in the truth and just want to make the guy look guilty.

However, when you question how much the accuser drank on the night in question (when she, unlike Kavanaugh, was willing to give a straight answer on), and proceed to question that maybe she was having consentual sex and then blamed the guy because for some reason that wouldn't make her feel like a tramp and convinced herself so strongly of it that she's needed a lifetime of therapy, then you're just bringing up possibilities that could be true.

So what is it - is it fair game to question people on how much they drink and to which frequency, even if you have something to gain from a particular answer, or not? No duh the democrats wanted him to look guilty. That's politics 101. The Republicans literally brought in a sex crimes prosecutor to question an (alleged) victim of sexual assault and it was extremely transparent from the line of questioning that their entire purpose was to paint a picture of the victim being taken advantage of by democrats - constant questions about who paid for the polygraph, questions about who from which campaign she spoke to when, who referred her to her lawyer, etc etc etc.


Being a person that was sexually assaulted myself - By someone that was drunk (so was I - but only slightly) - I take this fairly personally. Fun story - I myself did not report this, nor did I tell anybody for almost a year. Part of that was that given several circumstances involved, while at the time I was definitely not okay with it and what she did crossed a very explicitly stated line, I never thought about it in terms of sexual assault until recently.

I really don't get this idea in people's heads that people frequently use sexual assault allegations to try to make themselves feel better or take down people they dislike. Does it happen? Sure. But when based on DoJ, DHHS, CDC, and National Institute of Justice data you're looking at 321,500 sexual assaults per year in the general population, an additional 80,000 inmates, and 60,000 children... Can you start to understand people's offense when EVERY SINGLE TIME a sexual assault allegation comes up against someone powerful people start playing the "Well maybe she really wanted sex but then decided afterwards she didn't want it?" card, people get a bit offended?

Not to mention the fact that reporting sexual assault isn't fun. At all. You get to get repeatedly questioned by police, depending on circumstances you get to have a stranger rather intrusively collect samples from your genitals, have to hire a lawyer, and IF enough evidence is collected to bring you to trial you need to spend countless hundreds of hours in interviews, with lawyers, in court, and constantly have your story questioned and every secret in your life exposed in the hopes of finding something that will cast doubt on your story. Sounds like a ton of work and pain and lost time for a slim chance at getting someone put in jail, or to convince people that you did not in fact want to have sex because you feel bad about yourself. Common sense.
Fitness
5 years ago
Rachel Mitchell Memo Highlights Weaknesses In Ford Testimony, Exonerates Kavanaugh
10/01/2018 - 08:15
Rachel Mitchell, the veteran sex crimes prosecutor who was chosen by the GOP to question Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, sent a memo to Republican senators calling Ford’s allegations a “he said, she said” case that “is even weaker than that.”
In her 5-page memo (at the bottom of this article), Mitchell wrote that she was presenting her “independent assessment” of the allegations. She said this was based on her independent review of the evidence and her nearly 25 years of experience. She alleged in the document that “the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
Mitchell, who worked in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix as the chief of the Special Victims Division, which covers sex crimes and family violence, said she was not pressured to write the memorandum and it did not necessarily reflect the views of any other senator or committee member.
“While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person,” she wrote and added that "There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.”
Noting the obvious, Mitchell wrote that a “‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them….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.”
Mitchell listed several reasons for that conclusion. Courtesy of Heavy.com, these included:
• Dr. Ford “has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
Under this header, Mitchell listed different accounts she says Ford gave, ranging from “mid 1980s” in a text to the Washington Post to “early 80s” in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among other things.
• Dr. Ford “has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
According to Rachel Mitchell, no name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes. She did note that Ford’s husband “claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012” and added “in any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.”
• “When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
Mitchell stated that Ford told The Washington Post that she told her husband she was the victim of “physical abuse,” whereas she has now testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault.”
• “Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.”
Among the lack of details, Mitchell said that "she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party.” Mitchell continued: “She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house.” The memo then continued listing more details.
Mitchell pointed out that Ford “does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.”
• “Dr. Ford’s Account of the Alleged Assault Has Not Been Corroborated by Anyone She Identified as Having Attended – Including Her Lifelong Friend.
Mitchell wrote that Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party – Mark Judge, Patrick PJ Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, formerly Ingham. She said another boy attended but she couldn’t remember his name, but Mitchell pointed out that “no others have come forward.”
“All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,” Mitchell wrote. She stated that Keyser stated through counsel in her first statement that “Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
In a later statement, Keyser’s lawyer said, “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”
Ford testified that Leland did “not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.”
• “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.”
Mitchell wrote that Ford wrote in her letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein that she had heard Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault but testified that she could not hear them talking to anyone.
• Her “account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.”
Mitchell said The Washington Post’s account of Dr. Ford’s therapist notes say there were four boys in the bedroom when she was allegedly assaulted. Ford told The Post the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were at the party but in her testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She listed Smyth as a bystander in a text to The Post and to a polygrapher and then testified it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. “She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s,” wrote Mitchell.
• “Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.”
Mitchell said that Ford doesn’t remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post. She doesn’t remember if she showed the Post the notes or her summary of the notes.
Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.
• “Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.”
Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” But she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she “did not know how to do that.”
Mitchell also noted that Ford “could not remember if she was being audio or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. She could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.” (Ford’s attorneys have said she took and passed a polygraph.)
• “Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.”
According to Mitchell, the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford’s symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies “fairly frequently.” She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing. Mitchell noted that Ford testified that she was not “clear” whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her.
She said she struggled academically in college, but she didn’t make the claim about the last two years of high school.
• “The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.”
Under the above header, Mitchell referred to an additional timeline. You can read it at the end of the document embedded at the bottom of this article.
The above is a partial summary of the conclusions in the memo; in numerous instances Mitchell provided additional examples to back up her claims.
In his statement appointing Mitchell, Chuck Grassley praised Rachel Mitchell’s career. Grassley said that Mitchell has “decades of experience prosecuting sex crimes,” calling her a “career prosecutor.”
Although critics have alleged the GOP Senators just don’t want the bad optics of an all-male panel questioning Ford, Grassley gave another motive. “The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns,” Grassley said.
“I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role. Ms. Mitchell has been recognized in the legal community for her experience and objectivity. I’ve worked to give Dr. Ford an opportunity to share serious allegations with committee members in any format she’d like after learning of the allegations. I promised Dr. Ford that I would do everything in my power to avoid a repeat of the ‘circus’ atmosphere in the hearing room that we saw the week of September 4. I’ve taken this additional step to have questions asked by expert staff counsel to establish the most fair and respectful treatment of the witnesses possible.”
Rachel Mitchell has donated to the campaign of Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s Republican attorney general, according to The Post. The County Attorney’s newsletter also mentions that Mitchell was part of a team that won an award for dealing with a “sex assault backlog.”
Porforis
5 years ago
First of all, if you're posting nearly an article's worth of content, please post a link to the source. Give people credit for their work, and allow people on this forum to know where you're getting your information from.

Based on a casual review of this massive wall of text, I see several issues that makes me rather skeptical about the usefulness of the rest of this. Especially since Ford was specifically questioned on several of these points during her testimony and they were addressed.

"Under this header, Mitchell listed different accounts she says Ford gave, ranging from “mid 1980s” in a text to the Washington Post to “early 80s” in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among other things."

These are hardly well-defined terms. Is 1983 early or mid 80s? Couldn't it be described as either?

"According to Rachel Mitchell, no name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes. She did note that Ford’s husband “claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012” and added “in any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.”"

Therapists do not write down every detail of marriage therapy - the purpose isn't to document everything a person says, but to focus on documenting key points about a person's marriage difficulties. The fact that she said her sexual assailant was Brett Kavanaugh has zero purpose to the therapist. This was addressed in the hearing.

"Mitchell stated that Ford told The Washington Post that she told her husband she was the victim of “physical abuse,” whereas she has now testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault.”"

This was addressed in the hearing in a question to Ford. These were two different conversations and two different individuals being referenced.

"Among the lack of details, Mitchell said that "she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party.” Mitchell continued: “She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to her house.” The memo then continued listing more details."

This is extremely common if not near-universal in cases of various kinds of severew trauma, including sexual assault. Again, this was addressed in the hearing.

"“All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,” Mitchell wrote. She stated that Keyser stated through counsel in her first statement that “Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with, or without, Dr. Ford.”"

If they were not aware of a sexual assault or anything else notable about the party, there's zero reason they'd remember it. If you went to a party 30 years ago consisting of about 5 people you knew sorta well and nothing crazy happened, but it turns out someone got raped in a different room, would YOU specifically remember that one party where Jerry, Louise, PJ, Amy, and Jacob all were at the party at this specific house? Of course not. As was (barely) addressed in the hearing and has been addressed in statements by Keyser since, she is not saying that the party did not exist. Simply that she did not recall that specific party.

I'd continue on but really, anybody that's paid any attention to anything going on should be able to spot extremely obvious issues with nearly every point on the list.
Fitness
5 years ago
The entire report is on www. It goes into great detail. I have a PDF of the report, but don't know how to post it.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (11h) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (12h) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (13h) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (16h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (18h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (19h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    7h / Around The NFL / beast

    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.