New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
Well, hopefully some facts will come in soon instead of endless parades of unverifiable claims.
Click to expand...

If the scum-sucking Republican trash in the White House would allow it it would be possible that facts would come to light. However, we know that the sub-human Republican **** in the Senate don’t care and will confirm him anyway.
 
Segnosaur said:
Then you have the question... why isn't Kavanaugh asking for an investigation. If he is truly innocent, if an investigation would favor him, he should be front and center demanding the FBI get in there and clear his name.

The fact that he isn't asking for the FBI to do so (yet at least one victim, Ford, has asked for an investigation) gives a little more credibility to her than him.
Click to expand...

Christine Blasey Ford has asked for an FBI investigation.
Debbie Ramirez has asked for an for an FBI investigation and has offered to testify under penalty of perjury.
Now Julie Swetnick as asked for an FBI investigation.

Meanwhile Brett Kavanaugh has not, and when he was asked about that in the Faux News interview, he dodged the question by repeating his "I have never" talking point. When his wife was asked the same question, he butted in and again dodged the question the same way. He doesn't want the FBI investigating these claims, and he is clearly afraid of it happening.... that is absolutely telling.

Segnosaur said:
Right now, we have a lot of people coming forward to support both sides... "I knew Kavanaugh and he would never do such a thing"/"I saw Kavanaugh kick a puppy dog".
Click to expand...

The important thing is that while people can testify to what they see, people testifying to what they didn't see is utterly meaningless. Let me repeat the highlighted part in a different context.

"I knew Bill Cosby and he would never do such a thing

"I knew Rolf Harris and he would never do such a thing"

"I knew Jimmy Saville and he would never do such a thing"

"I knew Harvey Weinstein and he would never do such a thing"

These people all had very vocal supporters when the allegations against them first came out... not so much now.

People can have an undetected dark side that is either never revealed, or is not revealed for many years... it only takes one victim to come forward to give other victims the strength and willingness to follow suit... and then the dominoes start to tumble.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Is that true re the Ford polygraph test?
Click to expand...
who the **** cares what a polygraph says?
Click to expand...
Yes, polygraphs are often wrong, and are (rightfully) inadmissible in court. (Although as others have pointed out, Kavanaugh seems to be OK with them.)

To me, the important thing is that she actually volunteered to TAKE one. Her credibility was at stake. Even if she knew they were inaccurate, taking one (and failing) would have damaged her claim. So if she took one, it means she is either 1) some overly cunning individual with special secret agent training who knew ahead of time "I can easily beat this test", or 2) she knows her story is true.
 
autumn1971 said:
If the scum-sucking Republican trash in the White House would allow it it would be possible that facts would come to light. However, we know that the sub-human Republican **** in the Senate don’t care and will confirm him anyway.
Click to expand...

The police can investigate the claims and as far as I know there's nothing Trump or the Senate can do about that. The local police would be better at it, too. They know the schools and the neighborhoods and many of them would have grown up in the area.
 
smartcooky said:
.....
Meanwhile Brett Kavanaugh has not, and when he was asked about that in the Faux News interview, he dodged the question by repeating his "I have never" talking point. When his wife was asked the same question, he butted in and again dodged the question the same way. He doesn't want the FBI investigating these claims, and he is clearly afraid of it happening.... that is absolutely telling.
....
Click to expand...

Meanwhile Mark Judge, who likely knows a lot, has gone into hiding and ain't talkin' to nobody.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...16336a26305_story.html?utm_term=.b970e70c0391
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...60695e7f3fc_story.html?utm_term=.1818bfc42683
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yeah, right.

I wasn't comparing unsupported claims to unsupported claims.

I was linking rape victims to bigfoot sightings.
Click to expand...

You should revise. Some people's sarcasm detectors might not trigger. It took me a moment to realize what you meant. I think it's easy to miss.
 
LTC8K6 said:
We now have four women who have come forward to make these claims about Kavanaugh. How many more women coming forward will it take to convince you that there is ANY truth to these claims.
Click to expand...
The same number of stories, claims, and "corroborations" that I need to accept bigfoot.
Click to expand...
That is a very bizarre burden of proof.

We don't accept eye-witness claims of bigfoot as evidence because bigfoot defies current scientific understanding. (Thus, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.) On the other hand, sexual assaults happen very regularly. In fact, many of these assaults involve groups of individuals, and some even involve the use of alcohol or other drugs. (In fact here's a case right here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...xford-grooming-ring-jailed-for-sexual-assault). The fact that these cases exist should mean that eye-witness testimony should be more relevant.

The fact that you seem to be rejecting any and all such eye-witness testimony speaks volumes about how you actually feel. Can we assume that all your claims about how you "want investigations" is all empty rhetoric?

Uhhh.. no. Did you actually read what I wrote?

They will probably get at least a few different statements, because:

- They will be talking to people who haven't yet spoken out. This gets around the whole 'self selection' principle

- For the people who have made prior statements..., you will probably get people changing their claims, because 1) the FBI will control the questioning ..2) The FBI has certain legal authority

So no, they probably won't just get the "same statements we've already heard".
Click to expand...
See my edit.
Click to expand...
Your edit is completely irrelevant, because it doesn't address the fact that people's claims may change once they are dealing with an official FBI investigation, where any questioning will be done in an unbiased manner, and by people who have actual legal authority.

Why exactly is that concept so hard for you to understand?

Hard to believe anyone that remembers hasn't come forward, imo.
Click to expand...
Why is that so hard to believe?

Coming forward means you leave yourself open for possible abuse. (Ford has had death threats against her. I suspect anyone else coming out and saying "Yeah I saw Kavanauh drunk and molesting someone" might end up with the same sort of harassment. So some may not come forward in public because they fear for their safety. (Such may not be the case in an FBI investigation where sources can be protected.)

Some may also not come forward because, while they did witness Kavanaugh acting inappropriately, they can't afford the time that would be required to 'come forward', and/or they think that "everyone else that already came forward is enough".
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, polygraphs are often wrong, and are (rightfully) inadmissible in court. (Although as others have pointed out, Kavanaugh seems to be OK with them.)

To me, the important thing is that she actually volunteered to TAKE one. Her credibility was at stake. Even if she knew they were inaccurate, taking one (and failing) would have damaged her claim. So if she took one, it means she is either 1) some overly cunning individual with special secret agent training who knew ahead of time "I can easily beat this test", or 2) she knows her story is true.
Click to expand...

Even as a "meta-test" polygraphs shouldn't exit.
 
The only value of a polygraph is as an intimidation tool for the uninformed. It's embarrassing how often they still get advocated by people who ought to know better.
 
Babbylonian said:
I'd like to know who - outside of prostitutes, particularly hedonistic swingers, and characters in lurid fiction - consents to having multiple teenage boys take turns having sex with them.


In other words, if this happened, it was almost certainly done to a girl/woman who didn't properly consent.
Click to expand...

Antidotale, I know, but I know a woman who, at age 35, was quite openly proud of her pick up and 'conquest' of half a dozen "college boys" in one evening. Disgusting, yes, but not impossible.
 
smartcooky said:
Looking at her resume, she comes across as a very smart, very intelligent woman. Looks like a 100% reliable witness.
Click to expand...

Don't be silly - she does not even exist. I heard it on 4chan, totally reliable.

Also, some guy called into a right-wing talk radio station and claimed to know that she's crazy.

So, like....
 
Segnosaur said:
On the other hand, sexual assaults happen very regularly. In fact, many of these assaults involve groups of individuals, and some even involve the use of alcohol or other drugs.
Click to expand...

They don't involve teenage boys lining up outside of a room to wait their turn with the victim, but in full view of several nonparticipating witnesses, on multiple occasions, no less.

Lurid fiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom