New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
A former prosecutor assesses Ford's claim:
Critics of Ford have taken to calling into question whether it’s possible for a 30-year-old memory to be credible.

Sex crimes prosecutors across the country forge ahead on “he-said-she-said” cases regularly.

“I stand to believe there’s no such thing as a ‘he-said-she-said’ case,” Linda Fairstein, former chief of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Sex Crimes Bureau, told The Post. “As a prosecutor, it’s your job to break down every minute of the encounter so that details on one side pushes the facts over the edge.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...anaugh-heres-her-take/?utm_term=.586316ed430f
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's being reported that there's more evidence of perjury, this time with Kavanaugh's statement that he didn't know about his mentor sexually harassing people
Click to expand...

Not very flattering about Feinstein especially given she sat on the letter about Kavanaugh in high school.
The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer later reported that after her dealings with Feinstein’s and Eshoo’s offices, Ford stepped back. Feinstein, Farrow reported, “acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh.”
Click to expand...
That's absurdly ignorant hoping to block Kavanaugh by his potential Roe V Wade votes in the future. She should have known to go after perjury and sexual harassment charges against Kavanaugh.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We shouldn't have the legislature inviting the FBI to investigate people's lives for something they could never charge as a crime. That is police-state-lite.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Segnosaur said:
Uhh... yes they should.

There are times when it is necessary to see if an individual may be compromised in their job. For example, gambling may not be illegal (in places line Nevada). But if a person has a habit of running up huge gambling debts, you may not want to put them in a situation where they may have access to large amounts of unaccounted-for cash.

Kavanaugh was not picked at random by the FBI to investigate. He is being investigated largely because he allowed himself to be nominated to be a supreme court judge. If he didn't want any such attention paid to his past history by the FBI, he should have said "thanks but no thanks" when asked about serving on the supreme court.
Click to expand...
Good point.

BobTheCoward said:
Then let the press look into it. Don't make the FBI into the FSB as a solution.
Click to expand...
Point fail.

Bob001 said:
It's Federal Bureau of Investigation. One of its jobs is to conduct background checks of nominees for high federal positions.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
Last edited:
He IS posting here.

But to my point: perhaps having an actual discussion with people you disagree with would be more productive than just throwing **** at them for laughs. If you're reduced to that, why not go to an echo chamber venue for yourself (general you)?
 
I have got a feeling the every major new outlet in the country...except for Faux News...has reporters digging into Kavenugh's past as we speak,and we might have some surprises ahead.
 
Mark judge's lawyer states that he has no recollection of the party and no recollection of the alleged incident. He affirmatively states that he never saw the Kavanaugh act in the manner described.

Seems pretty clear
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
A more plausible way of undermining her story is that she was assaulted, but she's got the wrong guy. We know she can't remember the house, who it belonged to, so maybe she's mistaken regarding the attacker etc. I'm not saying it's a great argument -- I'd expect someone to remember the name of their attacker, and I'd understand if they forgot the particular house where it occurred.
Click to expand...

The plausibility of this theory depends a lot on whether or not she knew the identity of the assailants at the time of her assault. If she knew Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15, then it is likely she would know that he was one of the assailants. If she only knew that they were two boys from some high class all boys school, and she subsequently saw a picture or story and said, "That's one of the guys who assaulted me." then it's much more likely that it is a mistaken identification.


That's where the background investigation comes in. Reporters know there's big interest in the story. They'll leave no stone unturned trying to dig more info. They'll learn, and probably pass on, where the house was, who was at the party, whether Christine Blasey hung out with guys from Kavanaugh's school, all sorts of vital information.
 
The Big Dog said:
Mark judge's lawyer states that he has [NO-ed. by me] recollection of the party and no recollection of the alleged incident. He affirmatively states that he never saw the Kavanaugh act in the manner described.

Seems pretty clear
Click to expand...

He says no recollection of the party or any assault. But he's written a book about his recovery from long-term alcoholism. He was a black-out drunk in high school. If he says he has "no recollection," that's not the same as saying "I remember that party and this didn't happen."
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...k-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/
 
Bob001 said:
He says no recollection of the party or any assault. But he's written a book about his recovery from long-term alcoholism. He was a black-out drunk in high school. If he says he has "no recollection," that's not the same as saying "I remember that party and this didn't happen."
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...k-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, my mistake, I fixed it Thanks for pointing that out.

saying that he never saw Brett act like that is a strong affirmative denial.
 
Meadmaker said:
The plausibility of this theory depends a lot on whether or not she knew the identity of the assailants at the time of her assault. If she knew Brett Kavanaugh when she was 15, then it is likely she would know that he was one of the assailants. If she only knew that they were two boys from some high class all boys school, and she subsequently saw a picture or story and said, "That's one of the guys who assaulted me." then it's much more likely that it is a mistaken identification.
....
Click to expand...


She has said previously that she knew them, and they moved in the same circles.
At the time, Ford said, she knew Kavanaugh and Judge as “friendly acquaintances” in the private-school social circles of suburban Maryland. Her Holton-Arms friends mostly hung out with boys from the Landon School, she said, but for a period of several months socialized regularly with students from Georgetown Prep.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.f366a7174434

These are posh private schools. They would be part of a small world.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes, sorry, my mistake, I fixed it Thanks for pointing that out.

saying that he never saw Brett act like that is a strong affirmative denial.
Click to expand...

In the sense that it is a strong statement, yes. It is an affirmative denial. As evidentiary value, though, it's practically worthless. Of course he denies it. Duh.

Her statement is a strong affirmative accusation. Judge's statement and Kavanaugh's statements are strong affirmative denials.


In the absence of other evidence, it seems to me we have to find in favor of the accused, but there's plenty of time for other evidence to be put forward.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
She has said previously that she knew them, and they moved in the same circles.
Click to expand...


Misidentification seems much less likely, then.


That leaves lying, telling the truth, or weird memory substitution. That's a phrase I just made up, by the way. What I mean by it is that I have seen people switch people and places in and out of their memory over time. I'm thinking of one person, in particular, who I might remember an event, and then six months later she will talk about the event with some details missing or fuzzy, and a year after that, the event will be recognizable, but different people will be involved. As time goes by, her recollections are just as strong and certain as ever, sometimes more so. Places will change. Objects. People. The story will be recognizable, but it won't be what happened.


And if you tell my wife I said that, I will deny it completely.
 
I’ve studied false rape claims. The accusation against Kavanaugh doesn’t fit the profile.

Studies have found that false accusations are quite rare, but when they do happen, they tend to share several important characteristics. To anyone familiar with false rape accusations, the striking thing about this story is that it’s so undramatic. False stories typically have a lurid quality, often involving bizarre forms of cruelty that don’t always strictly make sense.
Click to expand...

She alleges that she feared Kavanaugh might kill her through drunken clumsiness, not through savagery. This is not a story crafted to earn sympathy or destroy someone’s character. This is a story someone tells because it’s most likely true.

Additionally, Ford herself — a married professor who teaches part time at Stanford — doesn’t fit the profile of a false accuser. Adults who make false accusations generally either have a criminal history or have a specific type of mental illness known as a factitious disorder: a personality disorder related to Munchausen syndrome that compels them to say they’ve been assaulted in dramatic ways.
Click to expand...

It is not common for adults to falsely report that they were raped many years after the accusation. In my research, I didn’t come across a single verified example of this. So — counterintuitively for many people — if Ford had reported the assault when it happened, there would be far more reason to suspect it was a lie.

Finally, while Ford’s alleged story of drunken wrestling sounds nothing like a false rape accusation, it does sound exactly like millions of real attempted rapes. It’s such a common story that it’s likely happening to many people as you read this sentence.
Click to expand...
 
Meadmaker said:
.....

And if you tell my wife I said that, I will deny it completely.
Click to expand...

Just say you don't remember.

Yeah, we all get that memory is malleable. But she not only named Kavanaugh, she named his buddy Judge as a witness/participant, and knew them both previously. Did she substitute two guys for others? Less plausible. And if she was lying, she wouldn't name a second party. It's now not "he said, she said," it's "he said, she said, and he said." Why make it harder for herself?
 
Bob001 said:
Just say you don't remember.

Yeah, we all get that memory is malleable. But she not only named Kavanaugh, she named his buddy Judge as a witness/participant, and knew them both previously. Did she substitute two guys for others? Less plausible.
Click to expand...

Good point. That would be a kind of crazy substitution. Not completely ridiculous, but a stretch.

And if she was lying, she wouldn't name a second party. It's now not "he said, she said," it's "he said, she said, and he said." Why make it harder for herself?
Click to expand...


Another good point. If fabricating the story completely and deliberately, that would be a weird one to fabricate.


Hmmmm……


Well, more evidence is yet to come. We'll see where that leads. I was glad to see several people, most notably Susan Collins, say that if he's lying, he's out. If a whole bunch of ex teenagers say that Ms. Ford's story sure sounds like that wild pool party at the Smith's house, Kavanaugh's career might be over.
 
PUtting aside the fate of Kavenaugh for a while, the GOP Senators need to handle this very carefully. If they go full scale assault on Ford, it is going to backfire on them bigtime in November. The GOP is already in deep kimchee with women voters, and an open assault on Ford will cost them votes they simply cannot afford to lose.
It ain't 1991,folks.Things have changed. This won't be another Anita Hill in terms of "getting away with it" with voters.
And I suspect that is what will happen...a massive personal attack at the hearing at Ford...simply because they don't know what the hell else to do.
And, yes, I do think the timing of this was politically motivated,but givne the crap the GOP has pulled they have no business complaining about it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom