Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
3 Pages123>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Barfarn  
#1 Posted : Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:10:43 PM(UTC)
Don’t think there’s enough evidence to deny Kavanaugh’s appointment on sexual allegations; but his own words disqualify him for SCOTUS.

It’s been argued in other threads that Christians, who regularly fail to exhibit Christian behavior, simply means they are not Christians.

Likewise, a SCOTUS justice’s mind must have fidelity to the core principle of laws 24/7. Throughout his testimony he said things that made him look like one of the dumber litigants on People’s court. To wit:

He spoke of wanting justice for the issue and stated he was ready to come in the next day for the hearing. A core principle of our justice system is that both sides need time to prepare their cases. Every defendant wants the trial the next day after the allegations became known.

He said FBI investigations don’t make conclusions, so their input is worthless. A real judge knows Law enforcement’s role is to investigate and establish facts, increasing the odds that the trier of fact makes correct conclusions. There are hundreds of facts that law enforcement could have uncovered that would have given the Senate better odds of getting it right.

He demonstrated a very dull legal mind. He was asked if Mark Judge [the guy alleged to have witnessed the sexual assault] should have been subpoenaed to testify. He said there was no purpose; Sen Leahy then asked him a question about Mark Judge and with a belligerent condescending arrogant bitchy tone he said, “you’ll need to ask him about that?” LOL He walked right into that; Leahy played him like a god dam fiddle. It was just like on TV, when the prosecutor has no proof and gets the defendant all mad and admits his crime…and it happened in real life to a guy that is to be appointed to SCOTUS LOL. You have got to be kidding????

He said his reputation is so destroyed, he probably could never get a job teaching law...oh but he can be on SCOTUS? They guy's a nut.

He said his family has gone thru hell. How about a Palestinian family in Gaza or a Yemani family that doesn't know where they’re next meal will come from or if they’ll be bombed or shot tomorrow. This guy's a total entitled diva; and his constant blubbering was pathetic and at least 90% contrived!

This is listening to about 45 minutes; so surely there is more.

Moreover, it is now clear he lied to get his current job stating he had no knowledge of documents being stolen the DNC; he lied about his knowledge of his mentor’s [Kozinski, who retired under threat of impeachment] sexual harassments; and he was White House counsel when Bush used a fraudulent WMD strategy to start a war in Iraq and instituted torture programs.

Anyone wanting his confirmation simply has no respect for the role SCOTUS plays as a CHECK AND BALANCE. Americans will get the democracy they deserve!
DarkaneRules  
#2 Posted : Friday, September 28, 2018 5:56:55 AM(UTC)
I was completely open minded about this going in, but Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement lost me. I don't know if those were all of his words, but it didn't sound like someone worthy of the highest court in the land to me. He sounded like a talk radio host. He sounded like Chris Matthews on Hardball. I know it's a tough situation, but his temperament and body language was all over the place. Not impressed.
Cheesey  
#3 Posted : Friday, September 28, 2018 1:54:33 PM(UTC)
How would you feel if someone came out and accused you of something from decades ago? How do you prove or disprove something from 20 or 30 years ago?
How many of us did things when we were young that we wish we had not done?
He has plenty of character witnesses from his past and present that back him up as not being that kind of person. Even some liberal people.

Not one of us is perfect. And let’s face it, anyone can throw out an accusation that supposedly happened 30 years ago, just to try to hurt someone that they don’t like.
What bugs me right now is that the same people that are trying to keep him out of the court are the same political party that said it was nobodies business when Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica, his subordinate, while on duty in the White House , then lied about it under oath.

I guess moral values only count when you can use them against someone you don’t like. Otherwise, it’s ok if it’s “your guy”.
If there was definite proof of this allegation, that would be one thing.
But there isn’t, so why is it a big deal now,30 years after the fact?
I did things that were stupid when I was young, that I wouldn’t do now. (No, I never forced myself on a woman) But everyone has some skeletons in their closets that they wouldn’t want out.
Right now we have a guy in Wisconsin that’s running for political office that has been arrested 9 times! Including theft and drunk driving. And it’s not from 30 years ago. Yes, he’s a liberal Democrat.
Should his not so distant past keep him from political office? I would say so, because he has shown his lack of obeying the law as his way of life.
One time, maybe even two times, you could say is s mistake. But NINE TIMES? That’s a lifestyle.

Kavanaugh has shown his lifestyle as a law abiding citizen, respectful of women.
Barfarn  
#4 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 8:18:58 AM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
How would you feel if someone came out and accused you of something from decades ago?


I wouldn't be great; but I'd respond with poise. And NO valid SCOTUS nominee would feel the way Kavanaugh felt. Often true character is revealed when someone's in the fire.

He felt panicked, belligerent, blubbering, combative and EVASIVE. Jesus wouldn’t have acted like that; so it was a demonstration of unchristian behavior. Do you have any idea what would happen in his courtroom if a witness responded to a lawyer’s questions like that? He feels the rules of decorum that are a critical component of due process simply don’t apply to him. A true judge at heart would be incapable of disrespecting the system like he did; he’s a disgrace.

A truthful person acts like Ford [calm, poised, respectful, direct answers to questions], a guilty person acts like Kavanaugh [Angry, unhinged, refusing to answer most questions from the “adversary,” filibustering with nonsensical diatribes knowing the adversary is on a time limit]. An innocent man wants FULL investigation and TIME to prove their case. An innocent man wouldn't bold-face LIE about the misogyny in his yearbook.

And I’ll tell ya this: the way he could instantly morph for Jekyll to Hyde and back 20 times depending on which party was asking the question is very strong evidence that this guy is not mentally balanced, he might be a monster. He is a political hack with zero respect for the Job.

His appointment is designed to ERODE SCOTUS' power under the Constitution and undermine what's left of our democracy.
Porforis  
#5 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 9:04:24 AM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
How would you feel if someone came out and accused you of something from decades ago? How do you prove or disprove something from 20 or 30 years ago?


I wouldn't like it. The reasons as to why would depend on whether or not I actually did the thing in question. You generally don't prove or disprove something from 20 or 30 years ago, and yet you seem to be focusing your sympathies squarely on the accused, and not the accuser. As you've already come to judgement on this. Which is precisely why people are afraid to come forward.

Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
How many of us did things when we were young that we wish we had not done?


Plenty, but I've never tried to rape anyone. There's a difference between doing stupid shit that endangers your own life that I'm sure all of us has done, and maybe even some illegal stuff, but if you tried to rape someone 30 years ago - you can't handwave it away as "boys will be boys" or "that was a long time ago" or "Hey you've been a great person since then, guess you get a free pass"

Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
He has plenty of character witnesses from his past and present that back him up as not being that kind of person. Even some liberal people.


Tell me, what sort of a person is a rapist? I mean hell, how many priests, pillars of their community, done a lifetime of legitimate public service and countless selfless deeds and no doubt treated 99.999% of people with complete and utter respect... Ended up having molested kids? What about revered sports coaches?

My point being, more often than not a rapist isn't that homeless weirdo that hangs out in the park. It's a person that has power and influence in the community. That power and influence oftentimes is enough by itself to keep people quiet.


Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
Not one of us is perfect. And let’s face it, anyone can throw out an accusation that supposedly happened 30 years ago, just to try to hurt someone that they don’t like.


I don't get the point of this statement. Yes of course anybody can claim anything. She mentioned him by name multiple times in therapy years before they even started whispering about him being appointed to the supreme court. There is actual evidence of this. This doesn't prove that he did it, it just proves that she's thought that he was the one that did it for years. Which frankly makes me roll my eyes at the "made up lies to hurt a supreme court nominee!" suggestion.

Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
What bugs me right now is that the same people that are trying to keep him out of the court are the same political party that said it was nobodies business when Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica, his subordinate, while on duty in the White House , then lied about it under oath.


That bothers me too. I'm also bothered by the fact that the same people that are trying their darndest to appoint him are the same political party that pounded their chests about what Bill Clinton's actions meant for the decency of amercian society and that the claims must be investigated. Imagine that, both parties change their tunes constantly based on whatever's politically convenient!

Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
I guess moral values only count when you can use them against someone you don’t like. Otherwise, it’s ok if it’s “your guy”.
If there was definite proof of this allegation, that would be one thing.
But there isn’t, so why is it a big deal now,30 years after the fact?


Because someone's life was permanently damaged by those actions, and when the person that did this to you is nominated to become a LIFETIME member of the supreme court.... I mean, wouldn't YOU want people to know he's not the saint he's claiming? Should she just shut up? Should children molested by priests decades ago just shut up because hey, it's not a big deal now right?

Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
Kavanaugh has shown his lifestyle as a law abiding citizen, respectful of women.


I would also ask you if that logic of yours would extend to priests molesting children.
Porforis  
#6 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 9:13:56 AM(UTC)
Barfarn said: Go to Quoted Post
I wouldn't be great; but I'd respond with poise. And NO valid SCOTUS nominee would feel the way Kavanaugh felt. Often true character is revealed when someone's in the fire.

He felt panicked, belligerent, blubbering, combative and EVASIVE. Jesus wouldn’t have acted like that; so it was a demonstration of unchristian behavior. Do you have any idea what would happen in his courtroom if a witness responded to a lawyer’s questions like that? He feels the rules of decorum that are a critical component of due process simply don’t apply to him. A true judge at heart would be incapable of disrespecting the system like he did; he’s a disgrace.

A truthful person acts like Ford [calm, poised, respectful, direct answers to questions], a guilty person acts like Kavanaugh [Angry, unhinged, refusing to answer most questions from the “adversary,” filibustering with nonsensical diatribes knowing the adversary is on a time limit]. An innocent man wants FULL investigation and TIME to prove their case. An innocent man wouldn't bold-face LIE about the misogyny in his yearbook.

And I’ll tell ya this: the way he could instantly morph for Jekyll to Hyde and back 20 times depending on which party was asking the question is very strong evidence that this guy is not mentally balanced, he might be a monster. He is a political hack with zero respect for the Job.

His appointment is designed to ERODE SCOTUS' power under the Constitution and undermine what's left of our democracy.


I... Don't know if I'd go nearly that far. I watched the ENTIRE hearing (holy shit). Ford was persuasive, and her behavior entirely consistent with the claims she was making, in a way that is profoundly hard to fake. Everything from facial expressions to body language to word choices.

Kavanaugh was emotional and powerful in his opening statement and frankly, blew me away.

Once he got away from the prepared statement, he was inconsistent, combative, evasive, and kept repeatedly going back to 3 or 4 talking points every time someone asked him a direct question he didn't feel like answering. For such a smart guy he should be able to figure out that everyone's asking him about his yearbook not because they're trying to fixate on dumb fart nicknames, but because the claim that a heavy drinker in high school NEVER drank to the point where he had ANY difficulties remembering what happened the previous night is not believable. Never blacked out? Sure. But never had ANY issues with memory? Bullshit. And every time someone brought up his drinking problem he went straight back to grandstanding about the good ol' american boy on the varsity football team, helping disabled children, etc etc etc... Wanted to punch him.

I don't disbelieve either of them insofar as what they think happened. The difference here is one of the two individuals had a drinking problem and from various sources that knew him at the time, he often drank to excess. And this individual is being evasive and combative to casual questioning. While the other is being interrogated by a prosecutor clearly trying to trap her into pointing a picture of a vast liberal conspiracy, being nothing but collected and cooperative.

Can you IMAGINE what people would be saying if Ford was the one that went off onto a forceful 40 minute rant for her opening statement, started accusing members of the Republican panel of willfully stifling her for their own political motivations, and then was evasive and non-specific whenever she was asked a question?
KRK  
#7 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 9:56:58 AM(UTC)
As usual, the posters who bloviate the most are the most inaccurate, ill-informed, and seem to lack the basic observation and factual assessment skills to understand the situation, serve on a jury, and probably should be stripped of their right to make him any meaningful decision in their own lives, much less anybody else’s.

Lacking in any of these attacks, on what would appear to be a fine man, are a basic understanding fundamental issues which are explicitly stated in our constitution, and every penal code which addresses these issues.

Point 1 is a presumption of innocence. This fundamental principle is the case whether you are accused of shoplifting, murder, rape, irrespective of what you are applying for aspiring to, or the position you’re in.

Second, is the fact that there needs to be corroborating evidence presented in order to fully prosecute anybody for anything. To the simpletons reading this, that means one person‘s word against another doesn’t hold sway

Finally, the third principle is in all of our laws there are statutes of limitations.

To the first point, to the folks who get all their facts from MSNBC and CNN...this is, in fact, a proceeding in which the accused is presumed innocent. At least that is the case according to our Constitution.

Second, Every single piece of corroborating evidence is in the favor of the judge. Nothing in this woman story is consistent with the fact set or allegations presented. ALL the other data and witnesses who have been asked to corroborate of the story have either explicitly undermined her statements or they all contradict her recollection.

Third, and the vast majority of our penal code, is a statute of limitations. It is grossly unfair to accuse somebody and ask them to defend themselves for actions taken 35 years ago, when you didn’t tell anybody, file a police report, or do anything about it contemporaneously.

All the women in my life know to scratch, claw, dig, and do anything that would provide physical evidence under your fingernails. If the government doesn’t take care of it, I will. Second they all know to file a police report as soon as possible. By the way, you’ll note that none of these accusers of filed police reports as to do would open them up to prosecution.

Also in regard to the assessment of his performance, I actually have a job and didn’t have the time to watch it. However in the snippets I saw, I thought he showed remarkable poise. I would’ve told the senators to go fuck themselves during the inane ridiculous questioning.

Kavanaugh is a strict constitutionalist. He believes the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally written and subsequently amended. To describe him as anything different illustrates an absolute lack of understanding of the constitution or his record.

But he is the embodiment of what all statists and the leftists HATE...A white male heterosexual who believes in the rule of law and the constitution.

Also, the real losers in this will be the women who were actually raped. The other losers will be women in general because entrepreneurs and other employers will not put themselves in a situation to be alone with women and open themselves up to unjust accusations down the road.

This will be my last correspondence on this topic. I go to this blog to escape from every day life, but I felt compelled to reply to the previously posts.
Cheesey  
#8 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 10:24:21 AM(UTC)
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.
If it was something that happened in the last year, it would be a lot easier to judge either way. Why wasn’t it reported to the police back then? If it had been, it would be easy to decide. But it wasn’t.
And priests were brought up in this thread. I don’t think any of them that molested children was found out to be a one time thing. It was a lifestyle of molesting that finally caught up with them. Has Kavanaugh shown that kind of history?
And as far as Jesus, he never sinned even once. So why bring up his name, except to try to judge others?
Look on the mirror and judge yourself honestly. I am a sinner. The ONLY reason I can go to Heaven is because of what Jesus did on the cross.
Even though I try not to, I sin all the time. I get angry when someone cuts me off in traffic, I get mad when someone “disses” me, I curse sometimes. I earn Hell, but by the grace of God, won’t end up there.

In the end, what I think about Kavanaugh doesn’t matter.
Did he do it? I don’t truly know. Neither does anyone here.
I bet if the lives of all the judges was laid out and you could see what bad they have done, not one of them would be on the bench.
Would Bill Clinton have ever been elected president had people known about his constant womanizing?
I don’t know. But I bet there would be many that would look the other way.
Using your high position to lure women into sex.....shouldn’t that be a reason to not hold the highest position in the country?
I honestly believe some look the other way in Clinton’s case so that they can feel better about things they have done. “Heck, the president did it, so it can’t be THAT bad”.
Had Clinton owned up to what he did, and not look right into the camera and lied to our faces, I would have had some respect for him.
If morals count for so much, then judge evenly. Don’t just pick and choose.
Barfarn  
#9 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 8:15:10 PM(UTC)
KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
As usual, the posters who bloviate the most are the most inaccurate, ill-informed, and seem to lack the basic observation and factual assessment skills to understand the situation


Thanks for providing a caricatured example for us. Would Jesus talk like this LOL?

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Point 1 is a presumption of innocence.

The presumption only applies to criminal trials, PLEASE PAT ATTENTION, this is effectively a job interview.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Second, is the fact that there needs to be corroborating evidence presented in order to fully prosecute anybody for anything. To the simpletons reading this, that means one person‘s word against another doesn’t hold sway


Authors for Wigmore and CJS are Simpletons?
Fact is, if a women’s testimony in a sexual abuse case is not contradictory or improbable on its face it does not need to be corroborated by other evidence unless a statute expressly requires it to be [See 2 of a number of treatises: 75 C.J.S., Rape, § 787; 7 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., §2061].


KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Finally, the third principle is in all of our laws there are statutes of limitations.

Sorry bud, no statute of limitations in the Ford case; the FBI investigation could end up with charges being brought. And since the investigation is limited in both scope and time; the charges could be filed AFTER Bretty Boy is appointed. How fun would that be????


KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Second, Every single piece of corroborating evidence is in the favor of the judge. Nothing in this woman story is consistent with the fact set or allegations presented. ALL the other data and witnesses who have been asked to corroborate of the story have either explicitly undermined her statements or they all contradict her recollection.


ahhhhh...WRONG again, unless you mean all the evidence reported by Koch Bro propaganda media! A witness now puts Keyser at the party.The Yearbook corroborated Ford and double impeached Bretty [First for showing a misogynistic side and second because he LIED about the meaning of the entries]. Mark Judge's girlfriend said he told her that he and another guy committed a sexual assault. Mark Judge's numerous written accounts of his drunken hooligan high school years and his best bud was Bretty. etc.etc.etc.


KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
All the women in my life know to scratch, claw, dig, and do anything that would provide physical evidence under your fingernails. If the government doesn’t take care of it, I will. Second they all know to file a police report as soon as possible. By the way, you’ll note that none of these accusers of filed police reports as to do would open them up to prosecution.


This is offensive and could only be close to true if you live in a Viking horde.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
I would’ve told the senators to go fuck themselves during the inane ridiculous questioning.


And yes, I’m sure you would. And that is why both you and Kavanaugh, with your parallel intemperance, would both be unfit to serve on SCOTUS.

KRK said: Go to Quoted Post
Kavanaugh is a strict constitutionalist.


A real and true person of the Law, a transcendent, brilliant, incorruptible legal mind, the type that should occupy every seat on SCOTUS, could never be labeled with one ignorantly charged meaningless word.
nerdmann  
#10 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 8:56:42 PM(UTC)
The whole thing is a referendum on whether mens' lives can be destroyed with no evidence.

First of all the Imperial Left DOESN'T CARE about rape. If they did, they wouldn't have run Hillary Clinton for office. They would also be looking askance at Keith Ellison and his accusations of violently assaulting women.

If they really DID care about rape, they wouldn't only Express those concerns when they believe it to be politically advantageous.

Second of all, if they actually HAD anything on Kavanaugh, they would have used it. THEY DON'T. So they had to go with the old standard, "unverifiable personal anecdote."

This is a TRANSPARENT move to block the new SCOTUS pick, JUST BECAUSE THE IMPERIAL LEFT DOESN'T LIKE HIM. They tried to do the same thing with Trump, with this fake Russia conspiracy theory. I say this as a Jill voter, and someone who HATED Kavanaugh as a pick.

Thirdly, if they criticized him on his 4th Amendment stance, they could have thrown him out on that. But The Imperial Left also HATES civil liberties.

Fourth, EVERBODY knows this is a false accusation. It's just that some people are hoping it will stick anyway. Like I said, this is a referendum on whether men can have their lives destroyed at any time, WITH NO EVIDENCE. Watch your backs, because we are seeing alot of people who want exactly that.


nerdmann  
#11 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 9:01:22 PM(UTC)


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."
nerdmann  
#12 Posted : Saturday, September 29, 2018 9:43:46 PM(UTC)
Looks like Grassley has referred a false accuser for prosecution. Don't worry, Sessions never does anything.
dyeah_gb  
#13 Posted : Sunday, September 30, 2018 5:21:42 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post


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."


Interesting video given I could not watch the entire (original) confirmation hearing. How does the text relate?
Barfarn  
#14 Posted : Sunday, September 30, 2018 7:07:46 AM(UTC)
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  
#15 Posted : Sunday, September 30, 2018 7:15:10 AM(UTC)
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.
Cheesey  
#16 Posted : Sunday, September 30, 2018 11:53:56 AM(UTC)
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.
Porforis  
#17 Posted : Monday, October 1, 2018 11:52:08 AM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


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  
#18 Posted : Monday, October 1, 2018 12:31:48 PM(UTC)
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  
#19 Posted : Monday, October 1, 2018 12:58:08 PM(UTC)
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  
#20 Posted : Monday, October 1, 2018 1:28:19 PM(UTC)
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.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Nonstopdrivel (2h) : The Chiefs just became the first NFL team ever to score 50 or more points and lose.
Nonstopdrivel (5h) : Anyone around to hit up the chat room?
Nonstopdrivel (5h) : I love the Rams' style of play.
Porforis (6h) : That's what he said.
Zero2Cool (7h) : that's what she said
gbguy20 (9h) : ill take some of that please
Nonstopdrivel (10h) : Over the last three games, Brees has completed 83 percent of his passes for 974 yards, 11 touchdowns and no interceptions. Those numbers are ridiculous.
Zero2Cool (10h) : @RobDemovsky Look for the Packers to add a D-lineman in the next 48 hours. McCarthy said he and Brian Gutekunst discussed that today.
Zero2Cool (10h) : McCarthy says may have to add a defensive lineman with Daniels out several weeks.
Zero2Cool (10h) : @TomSilverstein McCarthy said Graham will try to work with different splints and said every injury is different so it's hard to say whether it will work out.
Zero2Cool (12h) : Raiders set to sign WR Keon Hatcher off Packers' practice squad, source says.
Zero2Cool (17h) : Probably should, but it won't. It'll be same shit we've seen since 2012. Defenses aren't surprised.
packerfanoutwest (17h) : that should give the team so insentive..right?
Zero2Cool (18h) : Panthers lose, Packers win, next week and we're 6th seed. Stupid.
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Rumor about Jaguars trading Jalen Ramsey after season. No chance.
Nonstopdrivel (19-Nov) : Where is everyone? The action is in the chat room.
KRK (19-Nov) : im not seeing anything in chat
hardrocker950 (19-Nov) : Checkdowns don't exist in our offensive scheme lol
Nonstopdrivel (19-Nov) : You guys should get your happy asses in the chat room.
Nonstopdrivel (19-Nov) : That was supposed to be "the checkdown." Heh.
hardrocker950 (19-Nov) : All things I don't see from the Pack
hardrocker950 (19-Nov) : Yup, taking 5 yard completions when they are covering downfield... trusting their rb to make plays...
KRK (19-Nov) : more creativity from the Bears in one drive than the Packers in an entire game.
hardrocker950 (19-Nov) : Was just thinking that NSD
Nonstopdrivel (19-Nov) : Sure does make me jealous to watch Trubisky take TNT checkdown for a first-down gain.
KRK (19-Nov) : Viking guards getting stuffed
Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : @ESPNStatsInfo Philadelphia's 41-point loss to New Orleans is the largest by a defending Super Bowl champion.
Nonstopdrivel (18-Nov) : Saints have only punted 20 times ALL SEASON.
gbguy20 (18-Nov) : alex broke fibula and tibia, was taken to a hospital for immediate surgery
hardrocker950 (18-Nov) : The Alex Smith injury looks BAD
Nonstopdrivel (18-Nov) : 33 years to the day that Joe Theismann went down with a right leg injury.
gbguy20 (18-Nov) : nvm apparently cam is fine. drama queen
gbguy20 (18-Nov) : alex Smith and cam Newton both went down today. both teams ahead of us in the playoff race
Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : ✔ @JasonLaCanfora Browns release statement saying Condoleezza Rice has not been considered as a head coaching candidate
Nonstopdrivel (18-Nov) : Or should I say, she's played ball with a few football players?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2018 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 9 @ 7:20 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Sep 16 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 23 @ 12:00 PM
Redskins
Sunday, Sep 30 @ 12:00 PM
BILLS
Sunday, Oct 7 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Monday, Oct 15 @ 7:15 PM
49ERS
Sunday, Oct 28 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Nov 4 @ 7:20 PM
Patriots
Sunday, Nov 11 @ 3:25 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Nov 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Sunday, Nov 25 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 2 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Dec 9 @ 12:00 PM
FALCONS
Sunday, Dec 16 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Dec 23 @ 12:00 PM
Jets
Sunday, Dec 30 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

18h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

18-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

17-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Nov / Random Babble / Rockmolder

Headlines