Brett Michael Kavanaugh and the Roman Catholic Church
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
If Kavanaugh is so clean, why is it that he wouldn't ask for the FBI to investigate the charges? Even if the committee refuses him, it would show an eagerness to clear his name. Unless he has something else to hide. This attempted rape charge is one to be settled right away, one way or the other. Kavanaugh should be seen wanting more than the committee is willing to go or do.Truth can endure close examination!
Let the FBI investigate these women charges (attempted rape/ exposing himself). Kavanaugh needs his name cleared. Why not sue these women if they are lying? CM
There is nothing to investigate. And he is taking the high road.
You may regret the above statement. The jury is still out on Kavanaugh's drunken behavior if he has no knowledge of misdeeds. There are another woman (witness/victim) and other witnesses will come forth in the next 48hrs. Let the FBI investigate if one thinks it's false.
With major credibility issues on the new accusations...
Even your Fox News Poll says these hearing needs to be delayed: Women 29%; Men 20% of a 53% overall says these hearings should DELAYED.
Great...I disagree.
PS. Even the high road doesn't mean the FBI can't investigate. Kavanaugh is in denial. There is a sad ending to this nominee. Trump will pull his support for Kavanaugh.
CMThere is nothing to investigate. And he will be confirmed.
-
@C_M_ said:
You may regret the above statement. The jury is still out on Kavanaugh's drunken behavior if he has no knowledge of misdeeds. There are another woman (witness/victim) and other witnesses will come forth in the next 48hrs. Let the FBI investigate if one thinks it's false.In my view, that neither Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge (allegedly in the room at the time of Kavanaugh's assault on Dr. Blasey Ford) nor any Republican on the Judiciary Committee supports an FBI investigation of Blasey Ford's accusations, BUT SHE DOES, remains the single most-powerful witness to the legitimacy of her claims against the Judge. That she says, bring on our government's objective fact finders, put her and every other relevant person under oath, face-to-face with the Bureau's trained, experienced investigators, and then let them report, BUT Kavanaugh, Judge, and the Committee's GOPers won't consent, raises a large, unmistakable red flag.
And as if to pile on, Deborah Ramirez, the woman whose accusations were published by The New Yorker yesterday, says she thinks an FBI investigation of her charges is called for. Another accuser willing to go under oath in front of our nations's finest and most likely objective investigators, while Judge Kavanaugh apparently refuses.
To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone to speak to them either?
EDIT: The allegations about Kavanaugh and Judge to be raised to the nation within the next 48 hours are nuclear bombshells. Attorney Michael Avenatti says he has a client and corroborating witnesses who will come forward; what they will allege is chilling. (Review the questions HERE Avenatti proposes the Judiciary Committee address to Kavanaugh during Thursday's hearing. Click the small font text below the main tweet to see the questions in more readable format.)
Avenatti says his client supports an FBI investigation of her allegations (another accuser willing to go under oath in front of professional investigators) and is willing to submit to a polygraph test as long as Kavanaugh is.
If you want more info, watch the interview HERE. Whether you watch the interview or not, expect political tremors if Avenatti's client is as credible as he claims she will be.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
You may regret the above statement. The jury is still out on Kavanaugh's drunken behavior if he has no knowledge of misdeeds. There are another woman (witness/victim) and other witnesses will come forth in the next 48hrs. Let the FBI investigate if one thinks it's false.In my view, that neither Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge (allegedly in the room at the time of Kavanaugh's assault on Dr. Blasey Ford) nor any Republican on the Judiciary Committee supports an FBI investigation of Blasey Ford's accusations, BUT SHE DOES, remains the single most-powerful witness to the legitimacy of her claims against the Judge. That she says, bring on our government's objective fact finders, put her and every other relevant person under oath, face-to-face with the Bureau's trained, experienced investigators, and then let them report, BUT Kavanaugh, Judge, and the Committee's GOPers won't consent, raises a large, unmistakable red flag.
And as if to pile on, Deborah Ramirez, the woman whose accusations were published by The New Yorker yesterday, says she thinks an FBI investigation of her charges is called for. Another accuser willing to go under oath in front of our nations's finest and most likely objective investigators, while Judge Kavanaugh apparently refuses.
To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone to speak to them either?
EDIT: The allegations about Kavanaugh and Judge to be raised to the nation within the next 48 hours are nuclear bombshells. Attorney Michael Avenatti says he has a client and corroborating witnesses who will come forward; what they will allege is chilling. (Review the questions HERE Avenatti proposes the Judiciary Committee address to Kavanaugh during Thursday's hearing. Click the small font text below the main tweet to see the questions in more readable format.)
Avenatti says his client supports an FBI investigation of her allegations (another accuser willing to go under oath in front of professional investigators) and is willing to submit to a polygraph test as long as Kavanaugh is.
If you want more info, watch the interview HERE. Whether you watch the interview or not, expect political tremors if Avenatti's client is as credible as he claims she will be.
So far, there has not been one ounce of credibility to these accusations. Conflicting stories, no account of time and place, trying to prepare memories, etc. This is ludicrous. They should forget the hearings and have the vote. This is just a delay tactic from the Democrat party.
-
@reformed said:
So far, there has not been one ounce of credibility to these accusations. Conflicting stories, no account of time and place, trying to prepare memories, etc. This is ludicrous. They should forget the hearings and have the vote. This is just a delay tactic from the Democrat party.
I respect this as your go-to response to the charges made against Kavanaugh. What I'd like to have, however, is your direct response to the question I posed in my last post:
To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone else to speak to them either?
EDIT:
And now there's THIS, a statement from Kavanaugh's freshman-year roommate at Yale.This is NOT going to get better for the Judge or those who support his nomination to the high court.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
So far, there has not been one ounce of credibility to these accusations. Conflicting stories, no account of time and place, trying to prepare memories, etc. This is ludicrous. They should forget the hearings and have the vote. This is just a delay tactic from the Democrat party.
I respect this as your go-to response to the charges made against Kavanaugh. What I'd like to have, however, is your direct response to the question I posed in my last post:
To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone else to speak to them either?
EDIT:
And now there's THIS, a statement from Kavanaugh's freshman-year roommate at Yale.This is NOT going to get better for the Judge or those who support his nomination to the high court.
Unsubstantiated claims have no place in this country. It is he said/she said with no witnesses. The accuser can't even remember the details. Move on.
-
@reformed said:
Unsubstantiated claims have no place in this country. It is he said/she said with no witnesses. The accuser can't even remember the details. Move on.I always appreciate the time you take to compose your posts, reformed. However, I don't often appreciate your efforts to evade questions, efforts which you seem to employ frequently in our exchanges; here is yet another example. I didn't ask whether you believe "unsubstantiated claims" have a "place in this country," or whether we ought to "move on." I asked...
To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone else to speak to them either?
I hereby pose that question for the third time.
I'm remain confused by your practice of selectively evading questions I ask you in light of the consternation you express when you believe other posters evade the questions you ask them. Can you help me understand the apparent contradiction between your practice regarding my questions and your response to others' practices regarding your questions?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Unsubstantiated claims have no place in this country. It is he said/she said with no witnesses. The accuser can't even remember the details. Move on.I always appreciate the time you take to compose your posts, reformed. However, I don't often appreciate your efforts to evade questions, efforts which you seem to employ frequently in our exchanges; here is yet another example. I didn't ask whether you believe "unsubstantiated claims" have a "place in this country," or whether we ought to "move on." I asked...
To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone else to speak to them either?
I hereby pose that question for the third time.
I'm remain confused by your practice of selectively evading questions I ask you in light of the consternation you express when you believe other posters evade the questions you ask them. Can you help me understand the apparent contradiction between your practice regarding my questions and your response to others' practices regarding your questions?
What exactly is your question? I don't understand?
-
@reformed said:
What exactly is your question? I don't understand?
Huh!
Bill said: I'm remain confused by your practice of selectively evading questions I ask you in light of the consternation you express when you believe other posters evade the questions you ask them. Can you help me understand the apparent contradiction between your practice regarding my questions and your response to others' practices regarding your questions?
>
Bill said: To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone else to speak to them either?
These look like clearcut questions to me. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
What exactly is your question? I don't understand?
Huh!
Bill said: I'm remain confused by your practice of selectively evading questions I ask you in light of the consternation you express when you believe other posters evade the questions you ask them. Can you help me understand the apparent contradiction between your practice regarding my questions and your response to others' practices regarding your questions?
>
Bill said: To an OBJECTIVE observer, which conduct is more likely to appear to be the conduct of people confident that they are telling the truth: People who make charges and are willing to speak about those charges under oath to professional investigators and who call all others involved in the matter to do the same? or the people accused of those charges, but who are not willing to speak to the pros, and don't want anyone else to speak to them either?
These look like clearcut questions to me. CM
Great, glad you understand, I will wait for Bill to clarify his question about who people speak to and confidence of truth. It makes no sense to me.
-
@reformed said:
Great, glad you understand, I will wait for Bill to clarify his question about who people speak to and confidence of truth. It makes no sense to me.
By all means. Bill, I am sure, is willing and capable of giving you the elementary version of his questions. Stay tuned... I'll remain on the side. CM
-
@reformed said:
What exactly is your question? I don't understand?
My question is about the basic approach of the two principals in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle.
DR. BLASEY FORD: She made her claims and took (and passed) a polygraph examination administered by a former FBI agent. She has called for a reopened FBI probe in which she, Judge Kavanaugh, and all other persons with information relevant to the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's conduct would be questioned under oath by the Bureau's objective, experienced, and professional investigators. Blasey Ford's supporters have specifically endorsed the idea of all others with relevant knowledge testifying under oath, both to FBI investigators and to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
JUDGE KAVANAUGH: He made his claims, but has made no offer to take a polygraph examination. He apparently does not support a re-opened FBI probe where he, Dr. Blasey Ford, and all other persons with information relevant to the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's conduct would be questioned under oath by the Bureau's objective, experienced, and professional investigators. Kavanaugh's supporters have specifically rejected the idea of anyone else with relevant knowledge testifying under oath, either to FBI investigators or to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
QUESTION: Which of those two patterns of conduct - Blasey Ford's or Kavanaugh's - TO AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would seem more like the conduct of a person who is telling the truth and has nothing to hide? more like the conduct of supporters who believe the person they are supporting is telling the truth and has nothing to hide?
Put another way: Is it more likely that a person who wants everyone, including him- or herself, to testify under oath to the FBI, is telling the truth than is a person who does not want him- or herself or anyone else to testify under oath to the FBI? Is it more likely that the person who wants Mark Judge to testify under oath is telling the truth than is the person who does not want Mark Judge to testify under oath?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
What exactly is your question? I don't understand?
My question is about the basic approach of the two principals in the Kavanaugh confirmation battle.
DR. BLASEY FORD: She made her claims and took (and passed) a polygraph examination administered by a former FBI agent. She has called for a reopened FBI probe in which she, Judge Kavanaugh, and all other persons with information relevant to the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's conduct would be questioned under oath by the Bureau's objective, experienced, and professional investigators. Blasey Ford's supporters have specifically endorsed the idea of all others with relevant knowledge testifying under oath, both to FBI investigators and to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
An unknown former FBI agent. We do not know the questions that were asked on the polygraph so that doesn't tell us much.
Even still, the polygraph doesn't mean anything. It is not admissible in court so why does it even matter if she took a poly?
And they support the idea of testifying under oath except Ford is balking at every turn. Suspect.
JUDGE KAVANAUGH: He made his claims, but has made no offer to take a polygraph examination. He apparently does not support a re-opened FBI probe where he, Dr. Blasey Ford, and all other persons with information relevant to the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's conduct would be questioned under oath by the Bureau's objective, experienced, and professional investigators. Kavanaugh's supporters have specifically rejected the idea of anyone else with relevant knowledge testifying under oath, either to FBI investigators or to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Polys are inadmissible, they don't prove anything. Why should he support an FBI probe? And no, that is not a fair characterization of Kavanaugh supporters.
QUESTION: Which of those two patterns of conduct - Blasey Ford's or Kavanaugh's - TO AN OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would seem more like the conduct of a person who is telling the truth and has nothing to hide? more like the conduct of supporters who believe the person they are supporting is telling the truth and has nothing to hide?
Put another way: Is it more likely that a person who wants everyone, including him- or herself, to testify under oath to the FBI, is telling the truth than is a person who does not want him- or herself or anyone else to testify under oath to the FBI? Is it more likely that the person who wants Mark Judge to testify under oath is telling the truth than is the person who does not want Mark Judge to testify under oath?
Ok, Kavanaugh is the only one ready to testify before the Judiciary without question or squawk. Also, nothing Ford has done gives her any credibility. The poly is worthless. We don't know who administered it or what questions were asked. Polys also are not admissible.
Kavanaugh has given more evidence to support his story than Ford has.
So, given the two, the one who is actually cooperating with the process is more believeable.
-
@reformed said:
An unknown former FBI agent. We do not know the questions that were asked on the polygraph so that doesn't tell us much.Even still, the polygraph doesn't mean anything. It is not admissible in court so why does it even matter if she took a poly?
Supreme Court confirmation hearings are NOT court proceedings. Hence, the admissibility of polygraph tests in court is irrelevant. Polygraph exams are widely viewed as a credible indicator - granted, not a fool-proof indicator; but a credible indicator nonetheless - of a person's truthfulness.
The standard of proof in court proceedings - at least in criminal court proceedings - is guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's NOT the standard in Supreme Court confirmation hearings. There, I contend, the standard is qualified for the appointment beyond a reasonable doubt. In my view, THAT'S a standard Kavanaugh has not yet met.
And they support the idea of testifying under oath except Ford is balking at every turn. Suspect.
Your claim is patently false. From the beginning, Blasey Ford has asked for an FBI investigation in which she, Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and other relevant persons would ALL answer questions, effectively under oath (I know it's a felony to lie to the FBI - ask Trump's 2016 campaign staff - I don't know whether people who talk to the FBI are placed "under oath"). Further, she is testifying on Thursday of this week, UNDER OATH. The "balking" to which you refer was NOT about her testifying "under oath." It was about other matters.
Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking to the FBI, effectively, if not technically, under oath.
Since that answer will be no one, please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Well, that answer will be no one as well.
Polys are inadmissible, they don't prove anything. Why should he support an FBI probe? And no, that is not a fair characterization of Kavanaugh supporters.
As to "polys," see above.
The difference between an FBI probe and a Senate committee probe could not be more striking. The FBI is FAR more likely to produce an objective, non-partisan result that would be accepted by some - of course not all - on the side disappointed by the results. Given that the two sides of the Senate committee have basically all announced their votes ahead of Thursday's hearing, surely you believe a more non-partisan investigative process is both possible and desirable.... unless you don't really want the truth of this matter to be judged objectively.
Ok, Kavanaugh is the only one ready to testify before the Judiciary without question or squawk. Also, nothing Ford has done gives her any credibility. The poly is worthless. We don't know who administered it or what questions were asked. Polys also are not admissible.
Again with the "polys."
Kavanaugh has given more evidence to support his story than Ford has.
On a national news network program he robotically parrotted three basic replies: 1) that he has not "sexually assaulted anyone;" 2) that he has always treated women with "dignity and respect;" 3) that he desires a "fair process." That's it.
Christine Blasey Ford told her story - sans robotic responses - to the Washington Post. She will tell her story on national TV this Thursday. As Mr Trump would say, we'll see what happens.
So, given the two, the one who is actually cooperating with the process is more believeable.
I'm sure he finds it easier to cooperate with a process that refuses to call Mark Judge, the other person in the room at the time of the alleged assault - a guy the Washington Post found, hiding out in Delaware on Tuesday; his first words to the Post's reporters? "How'd you find me?" - a process that will limit questions to one round of five minutes per senator; a process that has hired an Arizona attorney to ask the questions as a way of shielding the GOP senators on the panel from looking like the chauvinistic dinosaurs that they are; and a process that refuses to leverage the objective and professional investigative skills of the FBI.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
On a national news network program he robotically parrotted three basic replies:
1) that he has not "sexually assaulted anyone;"
2) that he has always treated women with "dignity and respect;"
3) that he desires a "fair process." That's it.Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, both, could be right about the incidents with Kavanaugh's, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, behavior when reviewing a cross-section of his schoolmates; instead of a portion, alcohol. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
An unknown former FBI agent. We do not know the questions that were asked on the polygraph so that doesn't tell us much.Even still, the polygraph doesn't mean anything. It is not admissible in court so why does it even matter if she took a poly?
Supreme Court confirmation hearings are NOT court proceedings. Hence, the admissibility of polygraph tests in court is irrelevant. Polygraph exams are widely viewed as a credible indicator - granted, not a fool-proof indicator; but a credible indicator nonetheless - of a person's truthfulness.
Again, UNKNOWN FBI agent and we don't know the questions that were asked. Poly means nothing in this case.
The standard of proof in court proceedings - at least in criminal court proceedings - is guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's NOT the standard in Supreme Court confirmation hearings. There, I contend, the standard is qualified for the appointment beyond a reasonable doubt. In my view, THAT'S a standard Kavanaugh has not yet met.
Actually that is not the standard for SCOTUS. All the Constitution says is:
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..."
That's the bar. Consent of the Senate. If this Senate gives its consent, he is qualified.
And they support the idea of testifying under oath except Ford is balking at every turn. Suspect.
Your claim is patently false. From the beginning, Blasey Ford has asked for an FBI investigation in which she, Judge Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and other relevant persons would ALL answer questions, effectively under oath (I know it's a felony to lie to the FBI - ask Trump's 2016 campaign staff - I don't know whether people who talk to the FBI are placed "under oath"). Further, she is testifying on Thursday of this week, UNDER OATH. The "balking" to which you refer was NOT about her testifying "under oath." It was about other matters.
Actually, from the beginning, she said she would testify for the comittee. Then she started putting tons of qualifiers and conditions (demands) attached to it when it came time for it to actually happen. That is balking. We still don't even know if she will show up tomorrow. Feinstein said yesterday she doesn't know if she will show up because they do not like the fact that outside counsel will be asking questions. Why is she so afraid of that?
Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking to the FBI, effectively, if not technically, under oath.
FBI is irrelevant in this matter. They have declined the case.
Since that answer will be no one, please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Just about everyone. Here are some headlines:
President Trump Says Christine Blasey Ford Should Testify | Time
White House 'Open' to Hearing From Second Kavanaugh Accuser : NPR
Just two headlines from liberal sources show that the White House (particularly Trump) are supportive of the testimony under oath..
Well, that answer will be no one as well.
Wrong.
Polys are inadmissible, they don't prove anything. Why should he support an FBI probe? And no, that is not a fair characterization of Kavanaugh supporters.
As to "polys," see above.
The difference between an FBI probe and a Senate committee probe could not be more striking. The FBI is FAR more likely to produce an objective, non-partisan result that would be accepted by some - of course not all - on the side disappointed by the results. Given that the two sides of the Senate committee have basically all announced their votes ahead of Thursday's hearing, surely you believe a more non-partisan investigative process is both possible and desirable.... unless you don't really want the truth of this matter to be judged objectively.
If she wants it to be investigated and, as you have pointed out many times, there is no statute of limitations, why doesn't she press charges? How come nobody has asked that question? If there is no statute of limitations why will she not press formal charges?
Ok, Kavanaugh is the only one ready to testify before the Judiciary without question or squawk. Also, nothing Ford has done gives her any credibility. The poly is worthless. We don't know who administered it or what questions were asked. Polys also are not admissible.
Again with the "polys."
Yes from an UNKNOWN agent with UNKNOWN questions.
Kavanaugh has given more evidence to support his story than Ford has.
On a national news network program he robotically parrotted three basic replies: 1) that he has not "sexually assaulted anyone;" 2) that he has always treated women with "dignity and respect;" 3) that he desires a "fair process." That's it.
Christine Blasey Ford told her story - sans robotic responses - to the Washington Post. She will tell her story on national TV this Thursday. As Mr Trump would say, we'll see what happens.
She told her story with GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES and witnesses have all denied her claims. We will see if she actually shows up on Thursday.
So, given the two, the one who is actually cooperating with the process is more believeable.
I'm sure he finds it easier to cooperate with a process that refuses to call Mark Judge, the other person in the room at the time of the alleged assault - a guy the Washington Post found, hiding out in Delaware on Tuesday; his first words to the Post's reporters? "How'd you find me?" - a process that will limit questions to one round of five minutes per senator; a process that has hired an Arizona attorney to ask the questions as a way of shielding the GOP senators on the panel from looking like the chauvinistic dinosaurs that they are; and a process that refuses to leverage the objective and professional investigative skills of the FBI.
I don't think those first words are suspect. I wouldn't want media tracking me down to invade my personal life either. Particularly fake news media.
The process of limiting the questions was FORD'S request. So I guesss she doesn't want to be truthful according to your claim.
They hired a prosecurtor that is from a background of these types of crimes. That's not shielding, that is smart. And if you want to talk about chauvinistic....good grief, let's talk about Democrat Senators like Hirano. Let's talk about the Democrat Senators in the first Kavanaugh hearing. Sheesh. THAT is chauvanistic.
-
@reformed said:
If she wants it to be investigated and, as you have pointed out many times, there is no statute of limitations, why doesn't she press charges? How come nobody has asked that question? If there is no statute of limitations why will she not press formal charges?
Not so fast, first things first. That may very well be what's coming after Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. You see what happened to Bill Cosby yesterday? That could very well be Kavanaugh's experience from his perch on the "High Court." In short, Kavanaugh may get there, but he will not stay.
Trump set Kavanaugh up to distract from the Mueller Investigation. Trump was told Kavanaugh would be difficult to confirm. The Russian probe is closing in on Trump and his family. Trump is a master manipulator. Sad, Sad, Sad. CM
-
@reformed said:
Again, UNKNOWN FBI agent and we don't know the questions that were asked. Poly means nothing in this case.How do an unknown FBI agent and unknown polygraph questions produce for you the conclusion that "poly means nothing in this case"? If you believe those matters are actually unknown, how can you possibly know whether the poly "means nothing"?
Actually that is not the standard for SCOTUS. All the Constitution says is:
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..."
That's the bar. Consent of the Senate. If this Senate gives its consent, he is qualified.
I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. I contend that for the members of the Judiciary Committee, the standard should be is the nominee qualified beyond a reasonable doubt for this lifetime appointment? Surely you believe that there should be high standards for such appointments, yes? You don't think just ANYONE should go on the court for life?
Remember the high standards the GOP set for Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick in the spring of 2016? GOPers decided that Garland was so unqualified that they didn't even meet with him, let alone give him a hearing or a vote. THOSE were high standards! Even higher than "advice and consent," in my view.
Actually, from the beginning, she said she would testify for the comittee. Then she started putting tons of qualifiers and conditions (demands) attached to it when it came time for it to actually happen. That is balking. We still don't even know if she will show up tomorrow. Feinstein said yesterday she doesn't know if she will show up because they do not like the fact that outside counsel will be asking questions. Why is she so afraid of that?
Were I a sexual assault victim, I'm guessing that I'd likely think it more intimidating to be examined for 55 minutes by a sex crimes prosecutor from three times zones to the west than by senators.
Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking to the FBI, effectively, if not technically, under oath.
FBI is irrelevant in this matter. They have declined the case.
The FBI is NOT irrelevant. As soon as the White House asked it to reopen its background investigation - cf Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill - it would do so.
Since that answer will be no one, please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Just about everyone. Here are some headlines:
President Trump Says Christine Blasey Ford Should Testify | Time
Revisit the question I asked: "Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.... Time does NOT say President Trump thinks Judge and all other relevant persons should testify before the Committee.
White House 'Open' to Hearing From Second Kavanaugh Accuser : NPR
Revisit the question I asked: "Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.... NPR does NOT say the White House is open to having Judge and all other relevant persons testify before the Committee.
Just two headlines from liberal sources show that the White House (particularly Trump) are supportive of the testimony under oath..
Revisit the question I asked. You have provided NO headlines - either from liberal or conservative sources - that show what I asked for.
Well, that answer will be no one as well.
Wrong.
Revisit the question I asked.... Right.
If she wants it to be investigated and, as you have pointed out many times, there is no statute of limitations, why doesn't she press charges? How come nobody has asked that question? If there is no statute of limitations why will she not press formal charges?
I don't know the answer to your question. Had you read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the effects of sexual assault on its victims, you'd know that it is NOT uncommon for victims not to press charges.
Ok, Kavanaugh is the only one ready to testify before the Judiciary without question or squawk. Also, nothing Ford has done gives her any credibility. The poly is worthless. We don't know who administered it or what questions were asked. Polys also are not admissible.
So your standard for nominee approval - if the Senate thinks the person is qualified - comes from the constitution. Where does your standard for witness credibility - ready to testify "without question or squawk" - come from?
She told her story with GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES and witnesses have all denied her claims. We will see if she actually shows up on Thursday.
Had you read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the impact of sexual assault on its victims, you'd know that "GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES" are NOT uncommon. (Though I must point out that I think you have only pointed out one inconsistency in her story - the number of persons in the room)
I don't think those first words are suspect. I wouldn't want media tracking me down to invade my personal life either. Particularly fake news media.
In my view, a person who is credibly alleged to have witnessed and participated in a sexual assault NEEDS to have his or her personal life "invaded."
The process of limiting the questions was FORD'S request. So I guesss she doesn't want to be truthful according to your claim.
Educate me. I can find no information that Blasey Ford requested that questions be limited to one five-minute round per Senator. Please provide a link.
They hired a prosecurtor that is from a background of these types of crimes. That's not shielding, that is smart. And if you want to talk about chauvinistic....good grief, let's talk about Democrat Senators like Hirano. Let's talk about the Democrat Senators in the first Kavanaugh hearing. Sheesh. THAT is chauvanistic.
Your response's blindness to the political reality involved in the GOP's decision to hire someone to ask the questions for them - a female attorney from undecided senator Jeff Flake's home state, no less - is glaring.
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
If she wants it to be investigated and, as you have pointed out many times, there is no statute of limitations, why doesn't she press charges? How come nobody has asked that question? If there is no statute of limitations why will she not press formal charges?
Not so fast, first things first. That may very well be what's coming after Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court. You see what happened to Bill Cosby yesterday? That could very well be Kavanaugh's experience from his perch on the "High Court." In short, Kavanaugh may get there, but he will not stay.
Trump set Kavanaugh up to distract from the Mueller Investigation. Trump was told Kavanaugh would be difficult to confirm. The Russian probe is closing in on Trump and his family. Trump is a master manipulator. Sad, Sad, Sad. CM
Ok, I'm not even going to dignify idiotic comments with further response.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Again, UNKNOWN FBI agent and we don't know the questions that were asked. Poly means nothing in this case.How do an unknown FBI agent and unknown polygraph questions produce for you the conclusion that "poly means nothing in this case"? If you believe those matters are actually unknown, how can you possibly know whether the poly "means nothing"?
Because at the moment it is just a claim, not evidence.
Actually that is not the standard for SCOTUS. All the Constitution says is:
"shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..."
That's the bar. Consent of the Senate. If this Senate gives its consent, he is qualified.
I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. I contend that for the members of the Judiciary Committee, the standard should be is the nominee qualified beyond a reasonable doubt for this lifetime appointment? Surely you believe that there should be high standards for such appointments, yes? You don't think just ANYONE should go on the court for life?
No, but I also don't believe random accusations that have no evidence should derail someone's life either.
Remember the high standards the GOP set for Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick in the spring of 2016? GOPers decided that Garland was so unqualified that they didn't even meet with him, let alone give him a hearing or a vote. THOSE were high standards! Even higher than "advice and consent," in my view.
Actually that was a limitation set by then Senator Biden. GOP just followed his lead. And it wasn't about him being qualified or unqualified, it was about not putting up a SCOTUS nominee in a Presidential Election. That being said, they did not give their consent for the nominee.
Actually, from the beginning, she said she would testify for the comittee. Then she started putting tons of qualifiers and conditions (demands) attached to it when it came time for it to actually happen. That is balking. We still don't even know if she will show up tomorrow. Feinstein said yesterday she doesn't know if she will show up because they do not like the fact that outside counsel will be asking questions. Why is she so afraid of that?
Were I a sexual assault victim, I'm guessing that I'd likely think it more intimidating to be examined for 55 minutes by a sex crimes prosecutor from three times zones to the west than by senators.
Why? If you want an FBI investigation why not a sex crimes prosecutor?
Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking to the FBI, effectively, if not technically, under oath.
FBI is irrelevant in this matter. They have declined the case.
The FBI is NOT irrelevant. As soon as the White House asked it to reopen its background investigation - cf Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill - it would do so.
But why would he? The FBI obviously thought there was nothing to pursue when they saw the original letter.
Since that answer will be no one, please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Just about everyone. Here are some headlines:
President Trump Says Christine Blasey Ford Should Testify | Time
Revisit the question I asked: "Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.... Time does NOT say President Trump thinks Judge and all other relevant persons should testify before the Committee.
White House 'Open' to Hearing From Second Kavanaugh Accuser : NPR
Revisit the question I asked: "Please name people in the White House, on the Judiciary Committee, or in Kavanaugh's camp who support having Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford, Mark Judge, and all other relevant persons talking under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.... NPR does NOT say the White House is open to having Judge and all other relevant persons testify before the Committee.
Just two headlines from liberal sources show that the White House (particularly Trump) are supportive of the testimony under oath..
Revisit the question I asked. You have provided NO headlines - either from liberal or conservative sources - that show what I asked for.
Well, that answer will be no one as well.
Wrong.
Revisit the question I asked.... Right.
Trump said they want to give everyone a chance to say what they have to say. So once again you were wrong.
If she wants it to be investigated and, as you have pointed out many times, there is no statute of limitations, why doesn't she press charges? How come nobody has asked that question? If there is no statute of limitations why will she not press formal charges?
I don't know the answer to your question. Had you read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the effects of sexual assault on its victims, you'd know that it is NOT uncommon for victims not to press charges.
Except at this point she is screaming it to the nation. It no longer fits your narrative of what assault victims do or do not do. There is no reason for her to not press charges at this point unless there is something not right with her story.
Ok, Kavanaugh is the only one ready to testify before the Judiciary without question or squawk. Also, nothing Ford has done gives her any credibility. The poly is worthless. We don't know who administered it or what questions were asked. Polys also are not admissible.
So your standard for nominee approval - if the Senate thinks the person is qualified - comes from the constitution. Where does your standard for witness credibility - ready to testify "without question or squawk" - come from?
You are either willing to testify (like she said at the beginning) or not. After she found out it was going to really happen all of a sudden demands start coming in.
She told her story with GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES and witnesses have all denied her claims. We will see if she actually shows up on Thursday.
Had you read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the impact of sexual assault on its victims, you'd know that "GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES" are NOT uncommon. (Though I must point out that I think you have only pointed out one inconsistency in her story - the number of persons in the room)
She doesn't remember time, place, which party, how she got there, how many people, the gender of people, etc. That's a lot.
I don't think those first words are suspect. I wouldn't want media tracking me down to invade my personal life either. Particularly fake news media.
In my view, a person who is credibly alleged to have witnessed and participated in a sexual assault NEEDS to have his or her personal life "invaded."
Not by the press. We are not required to have lives invaded by the press.
The process of limiting the questions was FORD'S request. So I guesss she doesn't want to be truthful according to your claim.
Educate me. I can find no information that Blasey Ford requested that questions be limited to one five-minute round per Senator. Please provide a link.
Ford only wanted one round of questions per Senator and five minutes is standard. There is no time limit on opening remarks from Grassley and Feinstein.
They hired a prosecurtor that is from a background of these types of crimes. That's not shielding, that is smart. And if you want to talk about chauvinistic....good grief, let's talk about Democrat Senators like Hirano. Let's talk about the Democrat Senators in the first Kavanaugh hearing. Sheesh. THAT is chauvanistic.
Your response's blindness to the political reality involved in the GOP's decision to hire someone to ask the questions for them - a female attorney from undecided senator Jeff Flake's home state, no less - is glaring.
Your bias and blindness in favor of Democrats is also glaring. That doesn't change the fact that you ignored what is or is not chauvinistic.
-
I'll respond to your most recent post when I have more time, but for now, Dr Blasey Ford's lawyers have released the results of her polygraph test. I'm confident the document found AT THIS LINK will do nothing to sway your views, but in this thread you've made an issue of the fact that we don't know who the polygrapher is or how the examination was administered. Now we do.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I'll respond to your most recent post when I have more time, but for now, Dr Blasey Ford's lawyers have released the results of her polygraph test. I'm confident the document found AT THIS LINK will do nothing to sway your views, but in this thread you've made an issue of the fact that we don't know who the polygrapher is or how the examination was administered. Now we do.I can't get on the Huffington Post due to a filter, and it is interesting that they release it to a news organization and not the committee that requested them.
I would be interested in reading the document though, is there anywhere else that has it?
-
@reformed said:
I can't get on the Huffington Post due to a filter, and it is interesting that they release it to a news organization and not the committee that requested them.Try THIS LINK. If that link doesn't work, conduct a simple Google search - using the terms "polygraph test Blasey Ford released" worked for me.
When you read the document, you'll discover the error of your assumption that Blasey Ford's attorneys released the test results to a news organization, but not to the committee: The document is addressed to Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations on the Judiciary Committee.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I can't get on the Huffington Post due to a filter, and it is interesting that they release it to a news organization and not the committee that requested them.Try THIS LINK. If that link doesn't work, conduct a simple Google search - using the terms "polygraph test Blasey Ford released" worked for me.
When you read the document, you'll discover the error of your assumption that Blasey Ford's attorneys released the test results to a news organization, but not to the committee: The document is addressed to Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations on the Judiciary Committee.
Thanks for the link.
2 things:
- When I posted my previous statement about a news organziation vs the JC I had just read a statement saying the JC had not yet been provided with the poly results and I was going off of that knowledge.
- I notice a glaring issue with the poly statement. She does not positively ID Brett Kavanaugh.
-
The countdown clock is ticking to reject Mr. Brett Kavanaugh. He's not going to make it. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
The countdown clock is ticking to reject Mr. Brett Kavanaugh. He's not going to make it. CMSo far it still looks like he will.
-
Not after tonight! Is there anything in the Constitution about controlling one's self? If it is, his behavior was unconstitutional. If it is, as a strict Constitutionist, this explains his behavior. On a more serious point, the man needs to check himself and pray. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Not after tonight! Is there anything in the Constitution about controlling one's self? If it is, his behavior was unconstitutional. If it is, as a strict Constitutionist, this explains his behavior. On a more serious point, the man needs to check himself and pray. CM
No, that is not a stipulation in the Constitution that when you are accused with zero evidence that you must remain calm about it.
