Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
SpecialOlympian wrote:Still waiting on you to say something good about Kavanaugh.
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.
Steve_American wrote:2] In a kangaroo court one or both sides are not allowed to call as many witnesses as they need.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Steve_American wrote:This process was a kangaroo court if I ever saw one.
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?
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.
SpecialOlympian wrote:Would you like to finally explain how tariffs increase the price of corn in Thaliand and how it hurts Godstud?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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?
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.
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.
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.
Steve_American wrote:. . Then my kangaroo court objection will be relevant.
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."
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.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that Ford lied under questioning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finfinder wrote: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.
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.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This thing where you accuse me of not wanting an honest debate is a clear example.
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 should we take a poll
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.
Why would Professor Ford lie about Kavanaughs attempted rape of her?
No one has adequately answered this question in this thread.
To try to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court... duh!
What nonsense. The earth has been cooling for t[…]
October 14, Monday The citizens of Chincoteague[…]
Nah, that's too silly. Not even you believe that.[…]
It seems that the populists are not everywhere in[…]