Well yeah, he's a Democrat. How about the Senator Menendez thread?Al Franken was a blood sacrifice. The Keith Ellison thread is certainly quiet.
The therapist notes say 4 boys in the room.There were two boys (Kavanaugh & Judge) in the room and 4 boys altogether at the party.
People on both sides should stop talking about this process like it's a court of law. It's not. Its a court of congressional and public opinion for filling a position.
I would suggest you reference your last paragraph. There’s no way to know either way at this time and the fact that you’ve jumped to this conclusion indicates to me that you’re evaluating this based on partisanship instead of on the facts.
So we agree that the idea she happened to mistake him for another person who became a public official is pants on head dumb, right?
I didn’t say I believed her, you’re projecting your own partisanship onto me. What I said was that not believing her for the reason you gave is basically ‘ancient aliens’ type nonsense.
My stance has always been that the accusation is credible and should be investigated, that’s it.
Right. It’s effecticely a job interview. If you were interviewing someone and then heard a credible account of them being an attempted rapist would your response be ‘well they were never convicted so I’ll ignore that!’? Of course not, that would be insane. Why is a prospective SCOTUS justice held to a lower standard than someone applying for a cubicle job?
Well, we all know the answer to that. Partisanship leads to motivated reasoning.
Boy, oh boy, do I love watching you little Trump trolls eating big handfuls of shit. lol.
His mouth is full of Trump's balls, there's only one thing UberNeuman sees.This is about Trump?
Sounds like he may have to be subpoenaed then.Mark Judge, Key Witness To Alleged Brett Kavanaugh Assault, Refuses To Testify
Mark Judge, the man who Christine Blasey Ford has said was in the room while Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her when they were in high school, has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Right. It’s effecticely a job interview. If you were interviewing someone and then heard a credible account of them being an attempted rapist would your response be ‘well they were never convicted so I’ll ignore that!’? Of course not, that would be insane. Why is a prospective SCOTUS justice held to a lower standard than someone applying for a cubicle job?
Well, we all know the answer to that. Partisanship leads to motivated reasoning.
Facts? What facts? The only fact is she is accusing him. Thats it. And I jumped at nothing. When I first head this story my initial thought was "35 years later? Yeah right.". I didnt "jump" to any conclusion. Its the same when the shit about Obama's birth certificate story was circulating. I believe I actually LOL'd at that. I assumed innocence first. Which my constitution has taught me to do.
I think its just as possible it was Santa Clause who assaulted her as much as it was Kavenaugh. I know I personally dont remember who I dated 35 years ago, much less any of my classmate's names, MUCH LESS random girls from other schools I met at parties. Just saying Kavenaugh isnt the only one fitting her "profile"
Wanting more than her "story" is certainly not ancient aliens.
And mine is that unless there is verifiable proof, its an accusation and thats it. Im not saying it shouldnt be investigated. Im just saying I dont believe stories like this when theyre first told. I need more than some random person's word. ESPECIALLY in cases like this. Im fine to agree to disagree with you.
I guess Im more of an optimist than you.
His mouth is full of Trump's balls, there's only one thing UberNeuman sees.
Sounds like he may have to be subpoenaed then.
So the only fact is eyewitness testimony.
If your response is ‘35 years later? Yeah right.’ That indicates you don’t know much about sex crimes as long periods of time passing before people go public with their accusations is more the rule than the exception. I linked an analysis piece from a former sex crime prosecutor where they are very clear that’s a non-issue as to her credibility. In fact, this subject matter expert finds her story quite credible. With that in mind would you revise your opinion?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/18/former-sex-crimes-prosecutor-analyzed-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-heres-her-take/?utm_term=.35990bb7ffae
It’s also odd that your constitution says innocence first for Kavanaugh but you were totally comfortable with immediately branding this woman as a liar. Where is the innocence presumption there?
You might remember them better if they tried to rape you. Want to revise your opinion on this too?
This isn’t a criminal trial so I don’t bias my thinking one way or the other. When I look at this we have a credible accusation against someone we already know is a dishonest person. For me the standard for a lifetime appointment to an unreviewable court isn’t just ‘we won’t imprison you for this’, it’s unimpeachable integrity. He has lost that and so he should either withdraw or be rejected.
And if I'm sitting as a juror and that's all the prosecutor has, you think I'm going to respect that?
WaPo: Eyewitnesses aren’t as reliable as you might think
Over the past quarter-century, more than 1,400 people convicted of serious crimes have been proved innocent, according to the University of Michigan Law School’s National Registry of Exonerations. But why were these people wrongly convicted? In a great many cases, one significant factor was faulty eyewitness identifications.
Checkmate, Pubes. She wants an FBI investigation before she testifies. So either Kavanaugh gets investigated by the FBI, or this hangs over the head of Kavanaugh during the vote and they try to jam him through. He's screwed either way.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html
Bigly
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1042194363760214016
A big shoe to fall, if true Sherman: "Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously" Goes with WaPo interview: "Ford said she told no one of the incident in any DETAIL until 2012"
I dont think so. I, personally, would love to see an investigation. I bet Kavanagugh would too (from your article):
Kavanaugh said in a statement. "I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity."