Brett Kavanaugh Rape Accuser Admits She Made Up Her Story - Page 4 - 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.
#14963862
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That did make me chuckle.

Let me be the first to say, that no one should believe his accusers until evidence is provided.

Both in and out of Court, both under the Law, and in regards to public opinion.

No one's life should be destroyed on mere accusation.

I stand by that principle, even for this dickhead.
We have to believe all women VS. Otherwise you are a misogynist pig that hates women!

I believe her.
#14963926
Finfinder wrote:Very true I agree have to be consistent. I think many are holding off until we see some evidence. Its a felony charge so very serious.

Avenatti should have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Democrats and Avenatti did not want to give Kavanaugh the same presumption of innocence. That is hypocrisy.
#14964519
Hindsite wrote:Avenatti should have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Democrats and Avenatti did not want to give Kavanaugh the same presumption of innocence. That is hypocrisy.

With all due respect [of which you have earned none from me],
This assume innocence until found guilty does not apply to me and you.
. . We have no power over any of these people.
This is why you find it easy to find H. Clinton and Pres. Clinton guilty before they are even charged; and I can decide that for me the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient in the Kavanaugh case.
. . Then you and I get to vote based on our opinions. This is because we can't change the accused's lives one wit.
#14964727
Steve_American wrote:With all due respect [of which you have earned none from me],
This assume innocence until found guilty does not apply to me and you.
. . We have no power over any of these people.
This is why you find it easy to find H. Clinton and Pres. Clinton guilty before they are even charged; and I can decide that for me the preponderance of the evidence is sufficient in the Kavanaugh case.
. . Then you and I get to vote based on our opinions. This is because we can't change the accused's lives one wit.

There was no evidence against Kavanaugh. An accusation is not evidence, numbnuts.
#14964743
Hindsite wrote:There was no evidence against Kavanaugh. An accusation is not evidence, numbnuts.

Again, with all due respect, you are totally wrong.
Testimony by the victim of a crime is EVIDENCE. She testified under oath, so it is evidence.
It is always seen as such in every court in the world.
You here are discounting the testimony of witnesses in general. That is really stupid.
And I thereby throw your "numbnuts" insult back at you.
Last edited by Steve_American on 19 Nov 2018 08:35, edited 2 times in total.
#14964747
The real fact of the matter is that Kavanaugh was never on trial, so he was never going to suffer any punishment by law. If his accuser make sit up, she really only deserves ridicule for it, or a defamation of character civil suit, as you can't charge someone with perjury if they were never actually in a court of law.

False accusations happen, but they happen with all crimes, with about the same frequency.
#14964999
Steve_American wrote:Testimony by the victim of a crime is EVIDENCE. She testified under oath, so it is evidence.
It is always seen as such in every court in the world.

There was no crime committed by Kavanaugh. If there was a crime, she should have went to law enforcement to report it. She did not do it, because she knew she did not have evidence of a crime. Testifying under oath in Congress of what she claims to have remembered happening over 30 years ago does not make it evidence of a crime. Either her memory was faulty or she imagined it. All of her witnesses claimed either what she said never happened or they don't remember such an incident or even knowing Brett Kavanaugh.
#14965055
Steve_American wrote:
Testimony by the alleged victim of an alleged crime is EVIDENCE. She testified under oath, so it is evidence.
It is always seen as such in every court in the world.


Hindsite wrote:There was no crime committed by Kavanaugh. If there was a crime, she should have went to law enforcement to report it. She did not do it, because she knew she did not have evidence of a crime. Testifying under oath in Congress of what she claims to have remembered happening over 30 years ago does not make it evidence of a crime. Either her memory was faulty or she imagined it. All of her witnesses claimed either what she said never happened or they don't remember such an incident or even knowing Brett Kavanaugh.

Sorry about my 1960s style of saying things.
I added the necessary "alleged(s)" above.
Nice to see you double down on your bullsh*t opinion. It just shows everyone how far you are from the normal thinking about 'the rule of law'.
So, you are saying that because you don't believe her that her testimony is not any sort of evidence. OTOH, you are accepting the statements of her witnesses to the FBI as evidence. You are relying on 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand reports there too. The FBI report was not released AFAIK. So, you are taking your media sources word for it. While at the same time claiming that her sworn public testimony is not to be considered any sort of evidence.
Congress holds hearings all the time. In those hearings people testify under oath. You think Congress is wasting its time because this is NOT EVIDENCE. I thought it was gathering evidence.
For me, both Congress and the courts gather evidence by hearing testimony under oath. In the Kavanough case Congress was the relevant authority. Kavanough was not on trial for a crime.

Your very 1st sentence of your reply is assuming the conclusion that you want to see. It is clearly worded in the vernacular. The crime was alleged to have happened many years ago. Her treatment by you, and the Repuds in the Senate & Congress, the media, and millions of Trumpets; is why she didn't come forward so long ago. And times have changed. The me too movement is in full swing, and still she is accused of making false accusations for no reason (except as part of a Democratic conspiracy for which there is zero supporting evidence, unlike the recent right-wing conspiracy to smear Mueller).
. . The wording of that sentence assumes that which needs to be proven or demonstrated. Kananaugh wanted a promotion, he was not facing prison time; the gov. was not using its full resources to find all the evidence against him; so the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' does not apply. It can't be applied in any similar situation because that would always result in the alleged criminal being assumed to have not done it and given the promotion.

It is interesting how you personally have decided that H. Clinton was guilty of many crimes for which none resulted in her being charged in the now. But, here you argue that the focus of the accusations must be assumed innocent until it is proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Did you ever chant "Lock her up" at a Trump rally? If yes, then you are the hypocrite.
Last edited by Steve_American on 20 Nov 2018 07:32, edited 1 time in total.
#14965057
The fact that these allegations came up at the end of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing make them all suspicious. Also how Democrats blatantly used these allegations in attempt to stall the confirmation and discredit Kavanaugh show a coordinated effort on part of DNC and the accusers.

Democrats sat on Fords accusation since the summer yet brought them all up at the end of the hearings. Why? They did not even take them seriously.

Also all these familiar characters professional in the business like Ronan Farrow (#MeToo) and Avenatti all came up representing accusers. It is really hard to believe Ford and other accusers after all that.
#14965062
Steve_American wrote:Again, with all due respect, you are totally wrong.
Testimony by the victim of a crime is EVIDENCE. She testified under oath, so it is evidence.
It is always seen as such in every court in the world.
You here are discounting the testimony of witnesses in general. That is really stupid.
And I thereby throw your "numbnuts" insult back at you.

An anecdote from my own experience, this reminds me of a discussion about comfort women of Japan in WW2.

I took a Korean language class in Japan (everyone but me was Japanese--though it was a fairly small group and included a few older guys), and on the last day of class the professor decided to show a Korean documentary (with Japanese subtitles) on comfort women.

The video included testimony from many women, including Koreans, Taiwanese, Burmese, a Dutch women who was in Indonesia when the Japanese invaded, mainland Chinese, etc.

When the video was over, one of the Japanese guys said, "there is no evidence of the comfort women having been a real thing" (in Japanese).

I (in Japanese) said, "we just watched all of their testimony. That is evidence."

He tucked his feathers (like a peacock), and didn't reply (a common Japanese tact--avoid confrontation, while thinking to oneself 'this guy is full of it').

You are right, testimony is evidence.

And only a complete idiot denies the Japanese comfort women.

The fact though is there is evidence. It was policy, and there are written records of it. But these are largely (though incompletely) suppressed.
#14965073
Albert wrote:Yes, so compare that with Kavanaugh accusation with one like Ford: Imagine you watched the same documentary only with one woman accusing Japanese soldiers of the practice while the rest denying it.

Ford's friends didn't deny it. They said that they had no idea which party she was referring to and anyway they had not seen anything like that happen between her and Kavanaugh. That is, they just failed to confirm. This is not at all the same as a denial.
. . Also, "the rest" didn't deny it. At least 2 women got into the media with accusations of that sort of thing against Kavanaugh. Two of them didn't even get to testify and were not included in the 2nd FBI investigation. How many other women were smart enough to avoid having their life ruined by coming forward when the Senate was clearly bound and determined to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what?
. . And the Dems have explained why they didn't bring it up earlier. You just don't believe that explanation. And, clearly Ford and the others needed lawyers to protect them from people like Hindsite. Your attitude is like a juror believing that the accused in a murder trial is more likely guilty just because he hired a lawyer.
. . Again, if anyone's life has been 'ruined' or damaged it was Ford's and the other women's, not Kavanaugh's. All women knew in advance that that was the expected outcome. And yet, 3 women came forward. As I said, how many didn't?

----------------------------------
Hindsite's use of the phrase "there is no evidence" is sort of like how this thread's title/subject is in complete divergence with what that 3rd woman has said she had done.

-----------------------
Hindsite's use of the phrase "there is no evidence" reminds me of John Gray's book Men Are from Mars and women Are from Venus.
In the book Gray says that men and women have different ways of speaking English. My wife is an Asian from SE Asia and she does the same sort of thing. That is,they exaggerate for no good reason. For example, she has had a hard day and doesn't feel like cooking. In order to avoid admitting to that reason, she says to her husband when he gets home from work, "You never take me out to eat any more." ---- He thinks, 'what can she possibly mean, we went out to eat twice last weekend.' Gray says this then leads to an unnecessary argument. If either of them realized it is just women's way of speaking, that could be avoided. Another example, wife asks man "if you can, stop in your way home and pickup a gal. of milk?" He walks in without it because it slipped his mind. She asks him, "Where is the milk?" He doesn't want to admit his mistake, so he responds, "You asked 'if I can' stop for milk, I said yes; but I didn't promise to stop for milk, I only said that it is possible that I can stop for milk." Gray says that the problem here is women have a tendency to be polite and say "can you" instead of "will you". Gray says that he has to explain the problem here this way. "When you husband asked you to marry him, if he had said 'I love you dearly and want to spend my life with you. Can you marry me?' What would have been your thinking?" Then they get it.

Anyway, he says there is "no evidence" when obviously there is evidence. This seems like an example of Gray's 'women's speak'.
Last edited by Steve_American on 20 Nov 2018 14:53, edited 1 time in total.
#14965104
Ford’s testimony is a ‘memory fragment’ with no surrounding context. It appears in the middle of ‘no other memories’. This is characteristic of a ‘false memory’. The lack of context means it could have been instilled by a ‘traumatic movie scene’. This is exactly what came to my mind when listening to her testimony. “I saw that movie!”
#14965219
Steve_American wrote:Ford's friends didn't deny it. They said that they had no idea which party she was referring to and anyway they had not seen anything like that happen between her and Kavanaugh. That is, they just failed to confirm. This is not at all the same as a denial.
. . Also, "the rest" didn't deny it. At least 2 women got into the media with accusations of that sort of thing against Kavanaugh. Two of them didn't even get to testify and were not included in the 2nd FBI investigation. How many other women were smart enough to avoid having their life ruined by coming forward when the Senate was clearly bound and determined to confirm Kavanaugh no matter what?
. . And the Dems have explained why they didn't bring it up earlier. You just don't believe that explanation. And, clearly Ford and the others needed lawyers to protect them from people like Hindsite. Your attitude is like a juror believing that the accused in a murder trial is more likely guilty just because he hired a lawyer.
. . Again, if anyone's life has been 'ruined' or damaged it was Ford's and the other women's, not Kavanaugh's. All women knew in advance that that was the expected outcome. And yet, 3 women came forward. As I said, how many didn't?

----------------------------------
Hindsite's use of the phrase "there is no evidence" is sort of like how this thread's title/subject is in complete divergence with what that 3rd woman has said she had done.

-----------------------
Hindsite's use of the phrase "there is no evidence" reminds me of John Gray's book Men Are from Mars and women Are from Venus.
In the book Gray says that men and women have different ways of speaking English. My wife is an Asian from SE Asia and she does the same sort of thing. That is,they exaggerate for no good reason. For example, she has had a hard day and doesn't feel like cooking. In order to avoid admitting to that reason, she says to her husband when he gets home from work, "You never take me out to eat any more." ---- He thinks, 'what can she possibly mean, we went out to eat twice last weekend.' Gray says this then leads to an unnecessary argument. If either of them realized it is just women's way of speaking, that could be avoided. Another example, wife asks man "if you can, stop in your way home and pickup a gal. of milk?" He walks in without it because it slipped his mind. She asks him, "Where is the milk?" He doesn't want to admit his mistake, so he responds, "You asked 'if I can' stop for milk, I said yes; but I didn't promise to stop for milk, I only said that it is possible that I can stop for milk." Gray says that the problem here is women have a tendency to be polite and say "can you" instead of "will you". Gray says that he has to explain the problem here this way. "When you husband asked you to marry him, if he had said 'I love you dearly and want to spend my life with you. Can you marry me?' What would have been your thinking?" Then they get it.

Anyway, he says there is "no evidence" when obviously there is evidence. This seems like an example of Gray's 'women's speak'.
How was Ford's life ruined? What are you talking about? She most likely lied under oath and got away with it. Yes, very brave.

And there is NO EVIDENCE other then her testimony. Which has many holes and contradictions in it.


Like for example those therapy notes that prove that she confessed this to her therapist years ago are actually not primary notes but her summary of the therapy session. And we do not actually have the notes at all.
#14965340
Steve_American wrote:So, you are saying that because you don't believe her that her testimony is not any sort of evidence.

To me evidence needs more than just accusations stated in a hearing. It does not become evidence until it can be collaborated. One can have a dream and really think it happened, but a court of law does not take one's statement of memories from over 35 years ago as evidence without collaboration and neither should Congress. In the end, it proved to be only a stunt by the Democrats in an attempt to prevent a conservative judge from being confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Steve_American wrote:It is interesting how you personally have decided that H. Clinton was guilty of many crimes for which none resulted in her being charged in the now. But, here you argue that the focus of the accusations must be assumed innocent until it is proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Did you ever chant "Lock her up" at a Trump rally? If yes, then you are the hypocrite.

I never went to a Trump rally to chant "Lock here up". However, there was a lot of evidence presented to the public that Hillary Clinton was guilty. FBI Director Comey testified of their findings and one of the things he testified to was that there were classified messages found in her e-mails, but because of the fact she was the Democrat candidate for president, they decided no one would be willing to prosecute her.

In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status.

Even so, Clinton and her team still should have known the information was not appropriate for an unclassified system, Comey said.

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said of some of the top secret chains.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... email-def/

#14965351
Godstud wrote:Ivanka and Jared Kushner have sent government e-mails from their private e-mail account. Where is your outrage now? :lol:

As I understand it, their private e-mail accounts were used in transition and none of those e-mails were classified Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Besides President Trump explained that none of their e-mails have been destroyed and will become public government records. So I have no problem with that. Hillary Clinton and her team destroyed about 30,000 e-mails and several phones after they were subpoenaed. That is clear intent of a cover-up.

Trump speaks out on Ivanka's private emails, Saudi Arabia

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]