Feinstein Refers Kavanaugh to FBI for Alleged Sexual Assault 30 years ago - Page 39 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14952046
It's hilarious how @Hong Wu doesn't know what dog whistling is :lol: Women stepped forward and accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct and his political opponents openly called him a rapist, liar, drunk and an all around dipshit. There is nothing covert about that, the people who don't like Kavanaugh have said why in simple terms. Save your haikus for your body pillow/lover.
#14952049
Steve_American wrote:1] That standard applies to an American court of criminal law where both sides can call as many witnesses as they want.

The nature of the charge was criminal, so fair-minded people would assume the same standards apply.

Steve_American wrote:2] In a kangaroo court one or both sides are not allowed to call as many witnesses as they need.

Nobody was denied any witnesses. Ford's witnesses weren't called, because they all gave sworn statements that they could recall no such event.

Steve_American wrote:3] In this case the FBI was kept from interviewing many people who came forward with evidence. It didn't even re-interview Dr. Ford. Even though she said she had more to add.

They can only do a fact-finding investigation. They cannot conduct a criminal investigation of a non-federal crime. Everybody knew this already. It was just a delay tactic.

Steve_American wrote:4] The FBI didn't interview Kavanaugh about the facts of the accusation. Some say this wasn't necessary, because he had already testified under oath. However, his opening statement contained just one point that is relevant, his claim that he didn't do it. His other testimony was mostly evasions of the actual questions. In an interview it is much harder to evade answering the question.

A criminal defendant isn't required to answer any questions at all.

Steve_American wrote:5] My main point here is in #1 above. Because the Dems could not call additional witnesses it was unable to provide the collaboration that the Repuds asked for. This was so totally because they could not call even one more witness. It was not because there were no witnesses that they could have called.

The term is called "corroboration." They could not obtain any witnesses to corroborate the story. There were sworn statements from Ford's named witnesses, none of whom corroborated her story.

Steve_American wrote:6] The fact that the Repuds of the public can't see the kangaroo court-ness of this process just illustrates their bias.

They could see it just fine. There is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. If Blasey-Ford wants to file an affidavit of probable cause, she can do that right now and invoke a regular criminal court. She will lose, obviously.

Steve_American wrote:. . a] In traumatic situations it is common to not remember the details around the event but be crystal clear about things like the identity of a known person who attacked you.

Yes. In legal terms, this is called a "reasonable doubt." You have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If your memory is compromised, you are out of luck.

Steve_American wrote:. . b] Dr. Ford named 4 or 5 people who were at the party. Kavanaugh's calendar [which Dr.Ford could not have seen prior] says that several people, who's names match, were all at a party on Fri. night July 1st. Not one of these people says that the attack didn't happen; they all say something like 'I don't remember that particular party'. Which is not surprising, as any memory expert witness could testify to if such experts could have been called. For example, I remember where I was when I heard about the Columbine HS shooting, when JFK was shot, and when I first saw on live TV the 2nd plane crash into the WTC. I could add others. OTOH, I don't remember the date of any of the parties that I went to while I was in college, do you?

Even if we take that at face value, once again we have a situation where you can't prove the case. Most rape victims know where they were, what time it was, where they were before and after, what they were wearing, etc.

Steve_American wrote:. . c] Several people have said on camera that they remember Kavanough from HS or college and they think he must have lied when he said he never got blackout drunk. People like his room mate and people who lived n the same dorm floor, etc. The FBI interviewed none of them. None of them were called before the judicial committee.

He assented to falling asleep. By definition, you don't remember when you black out. He did say that nobody ever told him of some things he did while he was blacked out. Anybody could come forward with that evidence if they had done so.

Steve_American wrote:I could go on, & on, & on; but this should be enough to convince any unbiased human [if there is one in America today] that the preponderance of the evidence presented supports Dr. Ford and that much additional evidence was not allowed to be presented to the committee.

The preponderance of the evidence does not support her case at all. She doesn't even have enough to establish probable cause. The standard of evidence for a criminal charge is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is even a doubt about probable cause.

Steve_American wrote:This process was a kangaroo court if I ever saw one.

Yes. That's why if you want to make a criminal complaint, you go to the local authorities, not the Senate Judiciary committee.

SpecialOlypian wrote:Why does Generic White Man With No Qualifications deserve to be on the SCOTUS? Is there a particular ruling or thoroughly wonderful thing that Kavanaugh has done that you would like to share with us? What qualifies him?

He spent quite some time on the DC court of appeals--generally considered the second highest court in the land. Besides, he has a friend named Squi. That alone makes him a standout.


SpecialOlympian wrote:Yes, obviously nobody remembered Kavanaugh's attempt to rape her because most rapists don't operate in the open in front of witnesses.

Ford described proceeding upstairs to a bedroom with both Judge and Kavanaugh. She also said that Leland Keyser was there, and she named another person too. All of them denied that the party ever took place. Ford could not recall when it occurred, where it occurred, how she got there or how she left. Avenatti's client, Swetnick, claims that she attended many high school parties as a college sophomore where rape was conducted in the open, and boys politely waited their turn in line. I consider the story apocryphal.

SpecialOlympian wrote:Would you like to finally explain how tariffs increase the price of corn in Thaliand and how it hurts Godstud?

I have a degree in business, so I understand tariffs. Tell me about how it hurts Godstud though. That'll make a nice bedtime story.
#14952050
Hindsite wrote:Actually, the other guy she said was in the room said it did not happen. And the other woman that Dr. Ford said was her friend that was at the house in another room said she did not even know Brett Kavanaugh and she does not remember such an incident. Dr. Ford admitted to illegally drinking, but says she only had one beer, while Judge Kavanaugh denies illegally drinking and stated he was never at a party with Dr. Ford and her friend. Perhaps that is why her friend does not remember such a party or even knowing Kavanaugh.

It is illegal too drink in MARYLAND until one's 21st birthday. Another lie.
#14952056
blackjack21 wrote:The nature of the charge was criminal, so fair-minded people would assume the same standards apply.

Nobody was denied any witnesses. Ford's witnesses weren't called, because they all gave sworn statements that they could recall no such event.

They can only do a fact-finding investigation. They cannot conduct a criminal investigation of a non-federal crime. Everybody knew this already. It was just a delay tactic.


The actual full exchange was ---
"Steve_American wrote:
1] That standard applies to an American court of criminal law where both sides can call as many witnesses as they want.

Blackjack21 responded:
The nature of the charge was criminal, so fair-minded people would assume the same standards apply.

Steve_American wrote:
2] In a kangaroo court one or both sides are not allowed to call as many witnesses as they need.

Blackjack21 responded:
Nobody was denied any witnesses. Ford's witnesses weren't called, because they all gave sworn statements that they could recall no such event.

Steve_American wrote:
3] In this case the FBI was kept from interviewing many people who came forward with evidence. It didn't even re-interview Dr. Ford. Even though she said she had more to add.

Blackjack21 responded:
They can only do a fact-finding investigation. They cannot conduct a criminal investigation of a non-federal crime. Everybody knew this already. It was just a delay tactic."


#1] You missed the whole point. It makes no sense to demand 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when one side can't call all the witnesses necessary to do that. Like an expert witness on how memory works.

#2] There again you missed the point. The witnesses about how Kavanaugh got blind drunk in college were not called. Some say Kavnaugh lied when he said he never did that. No witnesses were allowed to refute that. Not his friends and not experts on the question, "Would a drunk ever or always remember that he couldn't remember the events of last light while he was that drunk?"

#3] That is beside the point. I'm not a legal or constitutional expert and I assume that you are not either. I don't know what sorts of FBI investigations have been done in the past in a similar situation. Do you?
. . This was a job interview, not a court of law. The FBI could have asked Dr. Ford more questions since she said she wanted to add things.
. . One witness said that she had been there when Kavanaugh was "inducted" into the fraternity he joined and that he was so drunk that she was sure that he could not remember that night. By now he will have asked his frat brothers to fill him in so he can pass the test on what happened that night.
. . The "jury" (such as it was) was split into 2 groups who in every case had already made up their mind. The 2nd jury, that is, in the court of public opinion; the case is not totally closed. It can be "reopened" and will probably will be.
. . Then my kangaroo court objection will be relevant.
#14952061
Steve_American wrote:#1] You missed the whole point. It makes no sense to demand 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when one side can't call all the witnesses necessary to do that. Like an expert witness on how memory works.

If Blasey-Ford wants to proceed with a criminal complaint, she may do so. The fact of the matter is that it will be thrown out of court, because it isn't specific, there were no witnesses, and the plaintiff cannot remember sufficient specifics about the event to establish a crime. After all, Kavanaugh has enough details of his own doings that he would be able to wage a defense of alibi if Blasey-Ford could simply state a date, time and location. Products of imagination cannot be tried.

Steve_American wrote:#2] There again you missed the point. The witnesses about how Kavanaugh got blind drunk in college were not called. Some say Kavnaugh lied when he said he never did that. No witnesses were allowed to refute that. Not his friends and not experts on the question, "Would a drunk ever or always remember that he couldn't remember the events of last light while he was that drunk?"

It's not that we don't get the point. It's that getting drunk in college is not a crime and not a disqualification for the Supreme Court 30 years later. It was a lame attempt at smearing his reputation, and it failed.

Steve_American wrote:#3] That is beside the point. I'm not a legal or constitutional expert and I assume that you are not either. I don't know what sorts of FBI investigations have been done in the past in a similar situation. Do you?

Yes. They investigated Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, because both of them were federal government employees and Hill's claims were regarding Thomas' behavior where he and Hill were employed at the EEOC. Since there was a federal question, the FBI could properly investigate.

Steve_American wrote:. . This was a job interview, not a court of law. The FBI could have asked Dr. Ford more questions since she said she wanted to add things.

The FBI doesn't do job interviews. Dr Ford could have added more sworn comments and given them to the Judiciary Committee too. Nobody stopped her from doing that.

Steve_American wrote:. . One witness said that she had been there when Kavanaugh was "inducted" into the fraternity he joined and that he was so drunk that she was sure that he could not remember that night. By now he will have asked his frat brothers to fill him in so he can pass the test on what happened that night.

Perjury charges require MATERIAL false statements. There isn't anything material here. Good lord... :roll:

Steve_American wrote:. . The "jury" (such as it was) was split into 2 groups who in every case had already made up their mind. The 2nd jury, that is, in the curt of public opinion; the case is not totally closed. It can be "reopened" and will probably will be.

I have no problem with it. As long as the Democrats are not focusing on issues that are material to voters, they will not win elections. The drinking habits of Justice Kavanaugh when he was a frat boy at Yale are not that important to people who didn't see incomes increase for 20 years and now see them increasing under Trump. Do you know how pissed off the American people would be if the Democrats try to impeach Kavanaugh because they think he wasn't honest about passing out while drunk during his college days? Do you realize how many politicians would have to resign--not that I'm opposed to that--if drinking until passed out were an issue that disqualified someone for public office? This is one of those things the Democrats are going to regret. All the sexual harassment stuff blew back on them for Clarence Thomas--Bill Clinton being its most notable victim.

Steve_American wrote:. . Then my kangaroo court objection will be relevant.

I'm afraid your objection will never be relevant. 10 years ago, we'd have Europeans lecturing us about the terrible behavior of Americans. Unfortunately, they are busy trying to outrun migrant rapists to bother us Americans with how superior to us they think they used to be. If we are to believe the Democrats today, the only problem with Kavanaugh being a rapist is that he was from a well-to-do white family. If he were an illegal alien, there would be no problem at all. He would even be excused for murder.
#14952104
Finfinder wrote:Is that an honest answer or did you purposely phrase it that way? So why not just say you don't believe Ford

You are not making any kind of clear argument that will further this discussion and if you are going to attempt to use my words. you should quote me, don't make it up. I never said "we are here to discuss evidence."

However
So this goes down to credibility and there is much more evidence of Kavanaughs credibility as I posted. The entire process, hours of testimony, 7 FBI investigations,and an impeccable resume, corroborated by many people, and over 300 court decisions. How about his calendar?

As a result of 37 years of waiting until the 12th hour .....Ford basically lied under questioning, nothing she alleged could corroborated, and all her witnesses deny her claims. She can't give a day, a year, or even a location.

You have failed to make a case why a simple 37 year old uncorroborated claim should destroy a person and prevent this nomination nor have you made any case for how this affected any of the over 300 decision Kavanaugh has written.


Please provide evidence that Ford lied under questioning.

Thanks.

Edit:

Apparently Trump is now calling it a hoax. He is basically saying that Ford lied under oath. No doubt all the people who are complaining about lack of due process and presumption of innocence will condmen Trump’s remarks.
#14952115
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that Ford lied under questioning.

Thanks.

Edit:

Apparently Trump is now calling it a hoax. He is basically saying that Ford lied under oath. No doubt all the people who are complaining about lack of due process and presumption of innocence will condmen Trump’s remarks.


Like I have been saying all along you don't want to have an honest debate. That is why you keep answering my questions with a question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I never said I believed Ford.


Is that an honest answer or did you purposely phrase it that way? So why not just say you don't believe Ford? You have been exposed enough.
#14952117
Finfinder wrote:Like I have been saying all along you don't want to have an honest debate. That is why you keep answering my questions with a question.


These little personal attacks that you make are irrelevant, and they also suggest you do not want an honest debate.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I never said I believed Ford.

Is that an honest answer or did you purposely phrase it that way? So why not just say you don't believe Ford? You have been exposed enough.


My opinion of Ford is not germane.

If you think she lied, as you claim, please provide evidence to support your claims.

If you want to honestly debate this, then show us the evidence.

If not, it seems like you are assuming she is guilty of a crime even though she has not been found guilty in a trial. Like Trump.
#14952121
Pants-of-dog wrote:These little personal attacks that you make are irrelevant, and they also suggest you do not want an honest debate.



My opinion of Ford is not germane.

If you think she lied, as you claim, please provide evidence to support your claims.

If you want to honestly debate this, then show us the evidence.

If not, it seems like you are assuming she is guilty of a crime even though she has not been found guilty in a trial. Like Trump.


Please show evidence of a personal attack towards you. Also please refrain from misquoting me in the future. Since you won't answer my question about Ford and your opinion of her is not germane, you are irrelevant to this discussion anymore.
thank

Edit: For your reference this is what a typical personal attack and rebuttal looks like on this topic from the people you seem to support and agree with on this issue.
[quote="SpecialOlympian"]Yes, obviously nobody remembered Kavanaugh's attempt to rape her because most rapists don't operate in the open in front of witnesses.

"I know that, as a [term you are extremely thin skinned about], you are drawn to rapists worldwide like moths to a flame and that you must defend them. It is instinctual for you. You are still wrong, and you haven't been paying attention to this political event and are just half-assedly sharing the first Google results you find while acting as if you know shit about fuck.
''
Last edited by Finfinder on 08 Oct 2018 19:06, edited 1 time in total.
#14952122
Finfinder wrote:Please show evidence of a personal attack towards you.


This thing where you accuse me of not wanting an honest debate is a clear example.

Also please refrain from misquoting me in the future. Since you won't answer my question about Ford and your opinion of her is not germane, you are irrelevant to this discussion anymore.
thanks


I did not misquote you.

You said she lied. I even bolded the bit from your own post. Your exact words were “Ford basically lied under questioning”.

I then asked for evidence of this claim.

As for whether or not I believe her, I am agnostic about her claims. There is not enough evidence either way to say for sure. The best one can say about her claims is that they are plausible.
#14952125
Pants-of-dog wrote:This thing where you accuse me of not wanting an honest debate is a clear example.

I did not misquote you.

You said she lied. I even bolded the bit from your own post. Your exact words were “Ford basically lied under questioning”.

I then asked for evidence of this claim.

As for whether or not I believe her, I am agnostic about her claims. There is not enough evidence either way to say for sure. The best one can say about her claims is that they are plausible.


Use google, use this thread, youtube, I'm not playing that game with you.

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore ? Here is where we are now, even though your opinion really doesn't matter to American politics because your from Canada. I suggest you refresh yourself with our constitution.

First how the executive branch works and how a president chooses a candidate.
Second on how many votes are needed from congress to confirm that candidate.

So really there nothing more to say other than I'm so sorry elections have consequences.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This thing where you accuse me of not wanting an honest debate is a clear example.
.


really :lol: should we take a poll :lol:
Last edited by Finfinder on 08 Oct 2018 20:43, edited 1 time in total.
#14952126
Finfinder wrote:Use google, use this thread, youtube, I'm not playing that game with you.

Do you even know what you are arguing anymore ? Here is where we are now, even though your opinion really doesn't matter to American politics because your from Canada. I suggest you refresh yourself with out constitution.

First how the executive branch works and how a president chooses a candidate.
Second on how many votes are needed from congress to confirm that candidate.

So really there nothing more to say other than I'm so sorry elections have consequences.



really :lol: should we take a poll :lol:


So no evidence for your claim that she lied under oath.

Have a good one, Finny.
#14952151
@Finfinder
Ford was lying couldn't be further from the truth.

Simply put, any evidence that supports Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her when he was drunk at a party is corroborating evidence. The evidence may be weak. The evidence may be strong. But it is still corroborating evidence if it tends to support the allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.
The evidence corroborating Ford’s claims is voluminous: It includes everything from Ford’s description of Kavanaugh’s drinking buddies, to Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that describes his plans to go to “Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi,” to Mark Judge’s memoir outlining his and “Bart O’Kavanaugh’s” drinking habits, to Kavanaugh’s Beach Week letter discussing “prolific pukers.” There is a slew of other evidence corroborating Ford’s claims. (Seth Abramson wrote a detailed Twitter thread about all the corroborating evidence; it is worth reading.)
In fact, corroborating evidence includes evidence that counters Kavanaugh’s own testimony. For example, Brett’s claims that he was a virgin who never drank to excess are belied by his own statements about how much he likes beer, as well as the statements of his high school and college Palestinians that he was frequently drunk and bragged about his sexual prowess. Evidence that lessens Kavanaugh’s credibility and enhances Ford’s credibility is corroborating evidence.
Is it airtight proof? No. But does any of this evidence support—not prove, but support—the main proposition? Of course it does.
As for hearsay? That term does not apply to any of the alleged victims’ statements about what happened to them. Stephens gets this laughably wrong.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that is offered in court to prove the truth of an assertion. Since we’re not in court and not following the rules of evidence—remember, this is a job interview where the question is Kavanaugh’s fitness to be a Supreme Court justice, not a trial to determine whether he should be convicted of assault—let’s just keep it simple and say that hearsay is a rumor. It is something that someone else tells you, which you then offer as proof that the rumor is true.
In other words, let’s say Ford didn’t remember that she was assaulted, but was told by her friend Leyland Keyser that she was. At the hearing, if Ford had said “I was assaulted, and I know that because Leyland told me,” that would be hearsay. Ford would be offering a statement from a friend saying, “this happened to you,” in order to prove the assertion that “this happened to me.”
But Ford’s testimony about what happened to her based on her own recollection is direct evidence. It may not be enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh at trial. It may not even be enough evidence to convince senators that Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.
But it is evidence. Same with Ramirez’s statement and Swetnick’s. It is not hearsay upon hearsay as Stephens claims. It is three separate pieces of direct evidence that, put together, corroborate claims that Kavanaugh drank excessively and was an aggressive, and sometimes violent, drunk.
So when conservatives say there’s no corroborating evidence, they’re not being honest. When they try to discount Ford’s testimony about what happened to her as hearsay, they are not being honest. In his op-ed, Bret Stephens is not being honest.

https://rewire.news/ablc/2018/10/04/cor ... legations/



anarchist23 wrote:
Why would Professor Ford lie about Kavanaughs attempted rape of her?
No one has adequately answered this question in this thread.


blackjack21 wrote:
To try to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court... duh!


Obviously. That is understood. lol
Professor Ford wanted to derail Kavanaughs nomination because he attempted to rape her and she believed that he was unworthy of the position of a Supreme Court Judge.
Why else?
#14952177
@SolarCross @Finfinder @Hindsite @blackjack21 @colliric

I think that an intelligent, rational man with 20 plus years of jurisprudence experience should react in a calmer and more levelheaded manner. To say that people are ruining his life is what any young, melodramatic teenager might say to his mother. He should be able to formulate a case for why he is innocent. But how shocking that he was not able to, even after all that legal training and experience. He was trying to discredit the women as was his chum, Trump. Why use the no credibility tactic? Hmmm, maybe because he cannot build a strong case of innocence? Can you say, distraction or diversion? If what he says is true, why try to make others look like liars? Can you see the logic?

Heterosexual men can be perverts. Pervert is a word associated with people who like unacceptable or immoral behaviors such as grinding against an unwilling victim.

Definition of pervert from Merriam Webster dictionary online

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1a: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT

b: to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : MISDIRECT

2a: to divert to a wrong end or purpose : MISUSE

b: to twist the meaning or sense of : MISINTERPRET


per·vert | \ ˈpər-ˌvərt  \

Definition of pervert (Entry 2 of 2)

: one that has been perverted specifically : one given to some form of sexual perversion
  • 1
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 47

What nonsense. The earth has been cooling for t[…]

October 14, Monday The citizens of Chincoteague[…]

EU-BREXIT

Nah, that's too silly. Not even you believe that.[…]

It seems that the populists are not everywhere in[…]