How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
The amount of mud that you are going to be drug through after coming forward in itself makes it worth seriously considering. A very low number of accusations are not credible, but it happens.Far, far more incidents are never made known. Asking for the FBI to investigate knowing that if you are lying you will be vilified (further) and be subject to incarceration gives the accusation weight. I also include volunteering her therapist's notes from 2012, telling her husband in 2002, and upon seeing that he was nominated she began to become fearful, according to her husband, and said she would have to leave the country.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
1. Corroboration
In 2012, Ford described her account of the alleged attack to a therapist. Notes taken during this therapy session were provided to and reviewed by the Washington Post. Ford apparently did not name Kavanaugh during the 2012 session, however, her recollection of the event six years ago and shared with her therapist tracks with the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh in the letter which set this entire process in motion.
The prosecutors note, “To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.”
2. The Polygraph
Lie detector tests are famously controversial for their accuracy. But they remain in use by law enforcement to this day as a basic indicator of assessing credibility. And Christine Blasey Ford has passed one such test.
“While not determinative, the fact that Ford passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent lends credence to her claims,” the prosecutors write, while also acknowledging that lie detector tests are not admissible in court “because they are not always reliable.” Still, the prosecutors note, “the FBI and other law enforcement agencies frequently use polygraph tests to assess the credibility of witnesses and defendants.”
3. Ford Has No Motive Here
“Ford…by all accounts is not a particularly politically active person,” the argument goes, and therefore her allegations cannot be chalked up to a simple exercise in partisanship. Then the prosecutors note the fallout involved with coming forward to share such accusations. They write, “Ford knew that she would be personally attacked in front of her children, colleagues, students and friends. There is no reasonable explanation for why she would subject herself to such humiliation [except that] she felt she had a duty as a citizen…”
This more or less tracks with the timeline of events. Recall: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) kept the original letter secret from her own colleagues in the Senate–including her fellow Democrats. The letter only became public knowledge after its existence was reported on by The Intercept. The former prosecutors’ argument here essentially mirrors Ford’s initial hesitancy about coming forward. In comments to the Post, she said, “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?”
4. The Delay in Going Public Is Meaningless
Dismissing the idea that Ford’s aforementioned hesitancy about coming forward is indicative of any lapse in credibility, the authors note, “As prosecutors, we have learned that victims of sexual assault do not always come forward immediately — and often never do — because they are shamed by society, fear not being believed…or just want to move on with their lives.”
The former prosecutors also note that delays in reporting crimes don’t have any bearing on their truth or falsity and then shift to a brief discussion about the various pressures of coming forward during various times and in various environments. They write, “[I]t would have been even more daunting for a 15-year-old girl in the 1980s [to come forward].”
5, Creating a Witness for the Defense
The former prosecutors’ final argument against dismissing Ford’s allegations has to do with Brett Kavanaugh’s longtime friend Mark Judge, a conservative author and commentator. Ford claims Judge was present at the party and in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly tried to rape her. So far, Judge has refused to testify and said he has no recollection of the alleged attack in question–not exactly a denial of the allegations.
But, the authors ask, “Why would she create a defense witness…[and] place at the scene an individual who could, because of loyalties to his friend, contradict her account if she were making this up?”
I mean - SHE wanted FBI to look into it, political bias being removed. Bretty-boy doesn't.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
The amount of mud that you are going to be drug through after coming forward in itself makes it worth seriously considering. A very low number of accusations are not credible, but it happens.Far, far more incidents are never made known. Asking for the FBI to investigate knowing that if you are lying you will be vilified (further) and be subject to incarceration gives the accusation weight. I also include volunteering her therapist's notes from 2012, telling her husband in 2002, and upon seeing that he was nominated she began to become fearful, according to her husband, and said she would have to leave the country.
yes, true. I actually forgot about the therapist notes.
I think kavanugh's "calendar offerings" is hilarious. first, it proves absolutely zero, and second, all these people thinking it's unbelievable that he kept his old calendars with parties written on it, I actually have the same damn thing. For most of the 90's, my wall calendars had everything written on them, parties, occasions, etc. after that it was day planners with all the same info. And I still have them all in a briefcase. LOL
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
The amount of mud that you are going to be drug through after coming forward in itself makes it worth seriously considering. A very low number of accusations are not credible, but it happens.Far, far more incidents are never made known. Asking for the FBI to investigate knowing that if you are lying you will be vilified (further) and be subject to incarceration gives the accusation weight. I also include volunteering her therapist's notes from 2012, telling her husband in 2002, and upon seeing that he was nominated she began to become fearful, according to her husband, and said she would have to leave the country.
All that says to me is this should be investigated. To say someone should be disqualified based on an accusation alone...even if the accusation is very credible is not something I can get behind. I do think that an accusation like this should require an investigation prior to any vote and the Republicans wanting to try to force the vote anyhow are playing partisan politics.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
Frothing at the mouth and ramming this nomination through are some sayings that do not sound right at this time. I do not think that there is a conga line of democrats saying 'we got us a victim, we got us a victim'. Democrats do have the right to feel that the Republicans think they own the court. They held Scalia's seat open for over a year, Kennedy resigned 2 months ago. Let's put good people on the court regardless of their politics. Rushing and cutting corners is not the way that a lifetime appointment should be conducted. It makes the whole process suspect.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
The amount of mud that you are going to be drug through after coming forward in itself makes it worth seriously considering. A very low number of accusations are not credible, but it happens.Far, far more incidents are never made known. Asking for the FBI to investigate knowing that if you are lying you will be vilified (further) and be subject to incarceration gives the accusation weight. I also include volunteering her therapist's notes from 2012, telling her husband in 2002, and upon seeing that he was nominated she began to become fearful, according to her husband, and said she would have to leave the country.
All that says to me is this should be investigated. To say someone should be disqualified based on an accusation alone...even if the accusation is very credible is not something I can get behind. I do think that an accusation like this should require an investigation prior to any vote and the Republicans wanting to try to force the vote anyhow are playing partisan politics.
Agreed - the White House should have had the FBI on this already. If the accusations are untrue then they should be proven so just as quickly as the alternate.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
The amount of mud that you are going to be drug through after coming forward in itself makes it worth seriously considering. A very low number of accusations are not credible, but it happens.Far, far more incidents are never made known. Asking for the FBI to investigate knowing that if you are lying you will be vilified (further) and be subject to incarceration gives the accusation weight. I also include volunteering her therapist's notes from 2012, telling her husband in 2002, and upon seeing that he was nominated she began to become fearful, according to her husband, and said she would have to leave the country.
All that says to me is this should be investigated. To say someone should be disqualified based on an accusation alone...even if the accusation is very credible is not something I can get behind. I do think that an accusation like this should require an investigation prior to any vote and the Republicans wanting to try to force the vote anyhow are playing partisan politics.
Exactly.
The right thing is to take the "loss" and pause and investigate. This is just too transparent and not holding their feet to the fire on this - disgusting - behavior so close that is really hurts them is shocking and apalling.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,948
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
Frothing at the mouth and ramming this nomination through are some sayings that do not sound right at this time. I do not think that there is a conga line of democrats saying 'we got us a victim, we got us a victim'. Democrats do have the right to feel that the Republicans think they own the court. They held Scalia's seat open for over a year, Kennedy resigned 2 months ago. Let's put good people on the court regardless of their politics. Rushing and cutting corners is not the way that a lifetime appointment should be conducted. It makes the whole process suspect.
ok, but the fact that SCOTUS appointments are made by politicians makes this political. thinking that either side isn't going to appoint people that will make decisions that line up with them politically is naive. just because we on the left feel that our politics are the correct ones doesn't make it any less a political game.
there literally is no such thing as "put good people on the court regardless of their politics" anymore. both sides are only interested in winning for their side.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
Frothing at the mouth and ramming this nomination through are some sayings that do not sound right at this time. I do not think that there is a conga line of democrats saying 'we got us a victim, we got us a victim'. Democrats do have the right to feel that the Republicans think they own the court. They held Scalia's seat open for over a year, Kennedy resigned 2 months ago. Let's put good people on the court regardless of their politics. Rushing and cutting corners is not the way that a lifetime appointment should be conducted. It makes the whole process suspect.
ok, but the fact that SCOTUS appointments are made by politicians makes this political. thinking that either side isn't going to appoint people that will make decisions that line up with them politically is naive. just because we on the left feel that our politics are the correct ones doesn't make it any less a political game.
there literally is no such thing as "put good people on the court regardless of their politics" anymore. both sides are only interested in winning for their side.
Maybe both sides can agree to not put sexual assaulter there atleast...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
Frothing at the mouth and ramming this nomination through are some sayings that do not sound right at this time. I do not think that there is a conga line of democrats saying 'we got us a victim, we got us a victim'. Democrats do have the right to feel that the Republicans think they own the court. They held Scalia's seat open for over a year, Kennedy resigned 2 months ago. Let's put good people on the court regardless of their politics. Rushing and cutting corners is not the way that a lifetime appointment should be conducted. It makes the whole process suspect.
ok, but the fact that SCOTUS appointments are made by politicians makes this political. thinking that either side isn't going to appoint people that will make decisions that line up with them politically is naive. just because we on the left feel that our politics are the correct ones doesn't make it any less a political game.
there literally is no such thing as "put good people on the court regardless of their politics" anymore. both sides are only interested in winning for their side.
Maybe both sides can agree to not put sexual assaulter there atleast...
Why would they? They each put one in the White House.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
Frothing at the mouth and ramming this nomination through are some sayings that do not sound right at this time. I do not think that there is a conga line of democrats saying 'we got us a victim, we got us a victim'. Democrats do have the right to feel that the Republicans think they own the court. They held Scalia's seat open for over a year, Kennedy resigned 2 months ago. Let's put good people on the court regardless of their politics. Rushing and cutting corners is not the way that a lifetime appointment should be conducted. It makes the whole process suspect.
ok, but the fact that SCOTUS appointments are made by politicians makes this political. thinking that either side isn't going to appoint people that will make decisions that line up with them politically is naive. just because we on the left feel that our politics are the correct ones doesn't make it any less a political game.
there literally is no such thing as "put good people on the court regardless of their politics" anymore. both sides are only interested in winning for their side.
Maybe both sides can agree to not put sexual assaulter there atleast...
let's see how this plays out now with more than one accuser.
Why were there no accusations of sexual misconduct when Gorsuch went through confirmation? If this is all partisan politics, why not do the same to Gorsuch?
Why were there no accusations of sexual misconduct when Gorsuch went through confirmation? If this is all partisan politics, why not do the same to Gorsuch?
I wrote a letter to Grassley about my night with Alito... but it didn't get any traction.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
1. Corroboration
In 2012, Ford described her account of the alleged attack to a therapist. Notes taken during this therapy session were provided to and reviewed by the Washington Post. Ford apparently did not name Kavanaugh during the 2012 session, however, her recollection of the event six years ago and shared with her therapist tracks with the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh in the letter which set this entire process in motion.
The prosecutors note, “To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.”
Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in the Honolulu news when Barack was born because they knew a biracial president was inevitable. So yeah, I can believe this woman planted the seed with the therapist.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,948
Why were there no accusations of sexual misconduct when Gorsuch went through confirmation? If this is all partisan politics, why not do the same to Gorsuch?
maybe he never drank to excess, which seems to be the common theme with Kavanaugh.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Why were there no accusations of sexual misconduct when Gorsuch went through confirmation? If this is all partisan politics, why not do the same to Gorsuch?
it's not. I'm not saying they invented this accusation. I am saying that they have been given a ball. they are running with it.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,948
edited September 2018
focus seems to be on the alleged assualts. critical element to these are his state of drunkenness at the time these were said to have occured.
sounds to me like he drank like I did back then. Plenty of nights I am sure I was fucked up but have no recollection of a given night if asked.
which is to say according to his memory(suspect due to excess alcohol consumption) this didnt happen. but still certainly could have. so we look to other evidence like his friend and his writings subsequent.
I'm inclined to not give too much credence to his denials...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,948
didnt trump make a point during his introduction as nominee Kavanaugh having worked closely with women? as if to suggest he championed women?
was that just initial cover for whats believed to be his stance on issues predominate to women? or something more sinister?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
1. Corroboration
In 2012, Ford described her account of the alleged attack to a therapist. Notes taken during this therapy session were provided to and reviewed by the Washington Post. Ford apparently did not name Kavanaugh during the 2012 session, however, her recollection of the event six years ago and shared with her therapist tracks with the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh in the letter which set this entire process in motion.
The prosecutors note, “To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.”
Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in the Honolulu news when Barack was born because they knew a biracial president was inevitable. So yeah, I can believe this woman planted the seed with the therapist.
Please tell me that you don't really believe this.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
1. Corroboration
In 2012, Ford described her account of the alleged attack to a therapist. Notes taken during this therapy session were provided to and reviewed by the Washington Post. Ford apparently did not name Kavanaugh during the 2012 session, however, her recollection of the event six years ago and shared with her therapist tracks with the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh in the letter which set this entire process in motion.
The prosecutors note, “To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.”
Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in the Honolulu news when Barack was born because they knew a biracial president was inevitable. So yeah, I can believe this woman planted the seed with the therapist.
Please tell me that you don't really believe this.
It was 1961. They knew that the Civil Rights Act of 64 was inevitable, as old Dixie would fall in line. Oh yeah... they knew.. they knew. Their diabolical plan was put in motion early.
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
ok, I'll ask again: what makes this accusation more credible than another? I'm not saying it's not, I'm wondering what makes one accusation, with little to no information, "credible". is an accusation credible for no other reason than it is an accusation?
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
1. Corroboration
In 2012, Ford described her account of the alleged attack to a therapist. Notes taken during this therapy session were provided to and reviewed by the Washington Post. Ford apparently did not name Kavanaugh during the 2012 session, however, her recollection of the event six years ago and shared with her therapist tracks with the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh in the letter which set this entire process in motion.
The prosecutors note, “To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.”
Obama's parents planted a fake birth announcement in the Honolulu news when Barack was born because they knew a biracial president was inevitable. So yeah, I can believe this woman planted the seed with the therapist.
Please tell me that you don't really believe this.
It was 1961. They knew that the Civil Rights Act of 64 was inevitable, as old Dixie would fall in line. Oh yeah... they knew.. they knew. Their diabolical plan was put in motion early.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Look we don’t know what happened. You are ok with convicting him in the court of public opinion without any more investigation. I’m not a fan of the guy and really pissed that republicans in the senate didn’t do their duty when obama was president, so I’m ok with Dems trying to stall ok this and trying to block to see if they can gain control and get a more moderate candidate.
But I’m not willing to say he’s guilty without an investigation. I don’t think a vote should occur before one though.
No, I am not okay with convicting him in the court of public opinion without further investigation. If that is what you think I have been saying you just don't get it.
You said that even if no more info becomes available he should be disqualified as a candidate....did you not?
Yes I did, and that is not "convicting him in the court of public opinion", as the rest of what I've said made clear IMO. Him being disqualified because of all this is not a conviction - not even in the figurative sense. And I find it disturbing that that is how people are treating this, considering the position that is being filled.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
Pushing someone through just to push someone through shouldn't be a factor though.
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
Exactly.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
Absolutely.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
How is it too much to ask that a SCOTUS judge not have sexual assault accusations against them that very well could be true?? Especially when the resistance to actually figuring out if they are true is so strong?
My God, the standards that some people apply to people for such positions are at an all time low.
And it shocks me that people would allow Kavanagh "losing his dream job" to be a legitimate concern. This position Trump is trying to put him in is so far beyond that. At the end of the day, a SCOTUS judge nominee needs to be beyond reproach, and we all know that Kavanaugh is not, even if this allegation is false... which I doubt. People seem to overestimating the chances of a woman putting herself in the position this woman is currently in. Please, someone give me any motive on her part that justifies it.
because in the current climate, many people think that every accusation is credible, no matter what. the overwhelming majority are credible, but that's not 100%, especially where politics are concerned.
the resistance is so strong because of the timing of the vote. there's a lot on the line for both parties. potentially decades worth of law making that could tip to one side or the other, and if it makes all the difference in the world if the vote happens before or after the mid-terms. so you can see why people are skeptical about the motivations on BOTH sides.
as far as we know right now, no, there is no motive on her part to go through what she's going through. but what if we found one out later, like piles of cash in an offshore account, but it was too late and this man's life is ruined?
now, after what we are hearing from other women and Avenatti, it's unlikely that this is untrue. But I'd like to know what, in your opinion, makes one sexual assault allegation credible and one not credible? is it motive for coming forward alone?
explain to me, if you will, how exactly his life would be ruined by not getting THIS lifetime appointment when he already has one? If its reputation , thats something that can be repaired wth contrition or if tge accusations are false, once the truth is revealed.
what he potentially goes through will fall far far far short of what these women will be forced to endure for speaking up.
I don't know, I just tend to think that sexual crimes reported on at the national/international level would suck pretty bad. And how is the truth revealed in a case of wrongful accusations of this nature? it's like proving there is no god. unless the accuser admits to lying, there is no "truth will come out".
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
Comments
Democrats or Republicans politics shouldn't be a factor either - the accusation is the accusation. The judge not being a sexual assaulter should be enough to warrant a pause to investigate - whether democrats pushing the information out is moot. If he was not in risk of being a sexual assaulter - which a judge shouldn't be then there would be nothing to push.
Even if I report my friend stealing a Benaroya vinyl just because I'm angry at him, doesn't mean the police should not act on it.
And this was not some woman who out of nowhere just threw out an accusation. It is clearly credible enough to look into. And that should take president over "LETS GET THIS FUCKER THROUGH ASAP!"
he's probably guilty. PROBABLY.
politics shouldn't be a factor, but it is, obviously. democrats can put themselves on a pedestal all they want claiming they "just want the facts" when in reality a lot of them are just frothing at the mouth that they might flip the house in the mid-terms making it possible to block any potential trump nominee. especially this one. would they be grandstanding as much as they are if trump had nominated a moderate?
www.headstonesband.com
1. Corroboration
In 2012, Ford described her account of the alleged attack to a therapist. Notes taken during this therapy session were provided to and reviewed by the Washington Post. Ford apparently did not name Kavanaugh during the 2012 session, however, her recollection of the event six years ago and shared with her therapist tracks with the allegations leveled against Kavanaugh in the letter which set this entire process in motion.
The prosecutors note, “To believe that this is a made-up tale to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Ford would have had to plant the seeds of this story in 2012. That makes no sense.”
2. The Polygraph
Lie detector tests are famously controversial for their accuracy. But they remain in use by law enforcement to this day as a basic indicator of assessing credibility. And Christine Blasey Ford has passed one such test.
“While not determinative, the fact that Ford passed a polygraph administered by a former FBI agent lends credence to her claims,” the prosecutors write, while also acknowledging that lie detector tests are not admissible in court “because they are not always reliable.” Still, the prosecutors note, “the FBI and other law enforcement agencies frequently use polygraph tests to assess the credibility of witnesses and defendants.”
3. Ford Has No Motive Here
“Ford…by all accounts is not a particularly politically active person,” the argument goes, and therefore her allegations cannot be chalked up to a simple exercise in partisanship. Then the prosecutors note the fallout involved with coming forward to share such accusations. They write, “Ford knew that she would be personally attacked in front of her children, colleagues, students and friends. There is no reasonable explanation for why she would subject herself to such humiliation [except that] she felt she had a duty as a citizen…”
This more or less tracks with the timeline of events. Recall: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) kept the original letter secret from her own colleagues in the Senate–including her fellow Democrats. The letter only became public knowledge after its existence was reported on by The Intercept. The former prosecutors’ argument here essentially mirrors Ford’s initial hesitancy about coming forward. In comments to the Post, she said, “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?”
4. The Delay in Going Public Is Meaningless
Dismissing the idea that Ford’s aforementioned hesitancy about coming forward is indicative of any lapse in credibility, the authors note, “As prosecutors, we have learned that victims of sexual assault do not always come forward immediately — and often never do — because they are shamed by society, fear not being believed…or just want to move on with their lives.”
The former prosecutors also note that delays in reporting crimes don’t have any bearing on their truth or falsity and then shift to a brief discussion about the various pressures of coming forward during various times and in various environments. They write, “[I]t would have been even more daunting for a 15-year-old girl in the 1980s [to come forward].”
5, Creating a Witness for the Defense
The former prosecutors’ final argument against dismissing Ford’s allegations has to do with Brett Kavanaugh’s longtime friend Mark Judge, a conservative author and commentator. Ford claims Judge was present at the party and in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly tried to rape her. So far, Judge has refused to testify and said he has no recollection of the alleged attack in question–not exactly a denial of the allegations.
But, the authors ask, “Why would she create a defense witness…[and] place at the scene an individual who could, because of loyalties to his friend, contradict her account if she were making this up?”
I mean - SHE wanted FBI to look into it, political bias being removed. Bretty-boy doesn't.
I think kavanugh's "calendar offerings" is hilarious. first, it proves absolutely zero, and second, all these people thinking it's unbelievable that he kept his old calendars with parties written on it, I actually have the same damn thing. For most of the 90's, my wall calendars had everything written on them, parties, occasions, etc. after that it was day planners with all the same info. And I still have them all in a briefcase. LOL
www.headstonesband.com
What does that tell you...
The right thing is to take the "loss" and pause and investigate. This is just too transparent and not holding their feet to the fire on this - disgusting - behavior so close that is really hurts them is shocking and apalling.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
there literally is no such thing as "put good people on the court regardless of their politics" anymore. both sides are only interested in winning for their side.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I hate having to say this so often, but it seems to be necessary: I'm not defending this guy. I'm guessing he did what she is accusing him of.
But it just seems to me that no one gives a fuck if she's lying. it's "oh well, he's still a judge, men have been assholes for centuries, so if this one is collateral damage, so be it". I just think that's a dangerous road to go down.
www.headstonesband.com