Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Dick Allen]

It seems to be confirmed Murkowski and Collins are with Flake, so FBI investigation or bust. Will Trump ask for one? Will he just say, let's try someone else, or will Bart O'Kavanaugh be caught in yet another lie and withdraw?

 

One thing he did make sure to say yesterday was polygraph tests were unreliable. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

All the usual assumptions about a GOP Senator who occasionally bucks the party are out the window in the case of Flake. Not because he hasn't flaked out on words-only rebellion before, because he has. But he because he's a lame duck who at present cares only about legacy, and sometimes people like that do odd things at big moments. Like McCain on ACA.

This whole things is horrifying but also fascinating, and anyone saying "oh we know how this will go" is just not paying close enough attention to the details. I wouldn't bet either way, I have no idea which way it will go, but Flake is a true wildcard here.

 

If I had to make a guess, I think the optics of Flake closing the elevator on the women saying that they were accused of assault this morning was so bad that it pushed things over the top. Maybe not for him, but maybe for Collins (I think Murkowski has realized if she votes for him her senate career ends, the native Alaskan population understands that while screwing minorities Kavanaugh would screw them in particular and that population provided the votes she needed last time out).

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

It seems to be confirmed Murkowski and Collins are with Flake, so FBI investigation or bust. Will Trump ask for one? Will he just say, let's try someone else, or will Bart O'Kavanaugh be caught in yet another lie and withdraw?

 

One thing he did make sure to say yesterday was polygraph tests were unreliable. 

I would agree polygraphs are unreliable, but I guess we have to go by the standard used by law enforcement that they're not admissible as evidence but can still be useful. That standard was recently outlined by this one judge...

 

[NorthSideSox72]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

I would agree polygraphs are unreliable, but I guess we have to go by the standard used by law enforcement that they're not admissible as evidence but can still be useful. That standard was recently outlined by this one judge...

 

Those agencies use them all the time on their own employees too.

 

[Balta1701]

Just now, NorthSideSox72 said:

Those agencies use them all the time on their own employees too.

 

I don't like that they do that either...but hey, if that's the standard then it's equally fair here.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

I don't like that they do that either...but hey, if that's the standard then it's equally fair here.

And they use them as part of the process to... screen applicants for jobs. Kinda like Kavanagh is applying for one right now.

 

[BigSqwert]

18 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

And they use them as part of the process to... screen applicants for jobs. Kinda like Kavanagh is applying for one right now.

 

You're not a big fan of the "He said he's a nice guy...what more do you want?!?" approach that Senate Republicans are using instead?

[NorthSideSox72]

7 minutes ago, BigSqwert said:

You're not a big fan of the "He said he's a nice guy...what more do you want?!?" approach that Senate Republicans are using instead?

lol

By the way, I wasn't trying to say I like polygraph tests or that I even think they should be used here. Just saying the standard for them seems to align pretty well to this type of use, if we are going to be consistent.

 

[Dick Allen]

40 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I would agree polygraphs are unreliable, but I guess we have to go by the standard used by law enforcement that they're not admissible as evidence but can still be useful. That standard was recently outlined by this one judge...

 

I set that up for you. Would his response to the Senators be considered another lie?

[Dick Allen]

I wonder what would happen if the FBI came back and said they couldn't determine the allegations against him but found his testimony less than truthful.  I am guessing he would be confirmed since he has been lying to them since 2004.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Jerksticks]

I think Kavanaugh ends up not getting the appointment.  I don’t think any level of investigating will clean the stain off of this nomination.  Trump doesn’t want a stained court.  I think Trump would rather nominate somebody else than deal with “asterisk” questions forever. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Jerksticks

[Kyyle23]

4 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

I think Kavanaugh ends up not getting the appointment.  I don’t think any level of investigating will clean the stain off of this nomination.  Trump doesn’t want a stained court.  I think Trump would rather nominate somebody else than deal with “asterisk” questions forever. 

Trump loved Kavanaughs performance yesterday, he raved about it.  He doesn’t care about a stained court because everything he does is stained, and this particular stain is important to his agenda

[Dick Allen]

Just now, Kyyle23 said:

Trump loved Kavanaughs performance yesterday, he raved about it.  He doesn’t care about a stained court because everything he does is stained, and this particular stain is important to his agenda

And it more than likely prevents him from being indicted. 

[Balta1701]

16 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I wonder what would happen if the FBI came back and said they couldn't determine the allegations against him but found his testimony less than truthful.  I am guessing he would be confirmed since he has been lying to them since 2004.

Apparently what everyone is wondering now, and what we don't know, is how they will set up the "investigation". It's entirely possible that they could ask the FBI to investigate the veracity of this claim by interviewing just the 2 who spoke yesterday and come back with a he-said, she-said story that says that the claims are "unverified", giving cover to Collins to vote for him. Basically, stacking the deck so that the result is the same as yesterday by avoiding any other witnesses or consideration of even the calendar that he handed over.

It's also possible that they could interview multiple relevant witnesses including the others who have issued sworn statements and assess whether it is likely that something happened, as would be done on a high level security clearance style background check, if Collins or Flake are actually insisting on a strong investigation to guarantee their vote. If that were done, based on everything that's available they'd probably come back by saying "we can't establish exactly how this particular event occurred but it is likely that there was more than one incident involving Kavanaugh that was inappropriate", which would put then those senators on the spot of having to either vote for a guy who crossed the line or torpedo his investigation.

[Dick Allen]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Apparently what everyone is wondering now, and what we don't know, is how they will set up the "investigation". It's entirely possible that they could ask the FBI to investigate the veracity of this claim by interviewing just the 2 who spoke yesterday and come back with a he-said, she-said story that says that the claims are "unverified", giving cover to Collins to vote for him. Basically, stacking the deck so that the result is the same as yesterday by avoiding any other witnesses or consideration of even the calendar that he handed over.

It's also possible that they could interview multiple relevant witnesses including the others who have issued sworn statements and assess whether it is likely that something happened, as would be done on a high level security clearance style background check, if Collins or Flake are actually insisting on a strong investigation to guarantee their vote. If that were done, based on everything that's available they'd probably come back by saying "we can't establish exactly how this particular event occurred but it is likely that there was more than one incident involving Kavanaugh that was inappropriate", which would put then those senators on the spot of having to either vote for a guy who crossed the line or torpedo his investigation.

The big problem is Trump will probably be running the investigation.

[Balta1701]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

The big problem is Trump will probably be running the investigation.

He'll have to order it, so if the Senators tell him it's ok to stack the deck to make sure it comes back as "unverified/unverifiable" then he will. If those Senators say that their vote depends on whether the investigation is legit, then you'll get the latter version of "Something bad more than likely happened probably more than once".

[wrathofhahn]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

That is true in American Society up until the point that someone is arrested or an alleged crime committed is made public. At that point, everyone is guilty until proven innocent, not in the eyes of the law but in the court of public opinion. And that is how it is set up. People need to take that into account. 

When it comes to Sexual Assault of any kind, statistics show that 98% of allegations are true. Based on that, I choose to believe the alleged victim until the evidence shows that they shouldn't be believed. I do believe that those that make false allegations need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. 

What kind of nonsense is this? Who determines the truth? Very few sexual assault cases go to trial and even fewer end in convictions.

I don't have the stats infront of me for America but in canada something like 1/10 reported cases ended in convictions and more troubling 1/5 are dismissed by police as baseless.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/one-in-10-substantiated-sex-assaults-result-in-conviction-statscan/article36731269/

So I don't know where that "stat" came from but it's likely fake news.

[wrathofhahn]

51 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

He'll have to order it, so if the Senators tell him it's ok to stack the deck to make sure it comes back as "unverified/unverifiable" then he will. If those Senators say that their vote depends on whether the investigation is legit, then you'll get the latter version of "Something bad more than likely happened probably more than once".

How can it come back any differently? She can't name the time. Can't name the place. Can't name the people. The people who she does name don't remember it happening including her own personal friends.

Meanwhile Kavanaugh has detailed notes of where and who he was with during the summer including possible corroboration should the timing of this alleged party ever be revealed.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, wrathofhahn said:

How can it come back any differently? She can't name the time. Can't name the place. Can't name the people. The people who she does name don't remember it happening including her own personal friends.

Meanwhile Kavanaugh has detailed notes of where and who he was with during the summer including possible corroboration should the timing of this alleged party ever be revealed.

How can I trust your memory of anything you just said? You couldn't remember the testimony from the Cosby trial and asserted that the accuser could remember the exact date when in fact that was easily proven false. Your entire statement is untrustworthy and you shouldn't be believed based on the standard you set.

[Balta1701]

 

[wrathofhahn]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

How can I trust your memory of anything you just said? You couldn't remember the testimony from the Cosby trial and asserted that the accuser could remember the exact date when in fact that was easily proven false. Your entire statement is untrustworthy and you shouldn't be believed based on the standard you set.

There is so much nonsense there first of all Cosby never denied he had sex he claimed it was consensual so the timing was never as important because the event took place he admitted it. The question was at the time: was it consensual? Clearly it was not. Two the dates we are talking about are much different in cosby case we are talking about a couple of weeks difference to me that isn't unusual and she was specific in her deposition she changed her answer by a couple of weeks she didn't give an entire season!

In Fords case we are talking decades she moves from late 80's, to early 80's, to the specific year of 82 and the season of summer. She claims it deeply affected her life but doesn't remember the time it started not even the year. That is to me not credible.

If the Republicans weren't such cowards they would have questioned her on this. They would have asked why she forwarded the allegation to the media and her democrat congresswoman instead of where it belonged the police. They would ask why to this day has she not filed a police report. They would have asked her how can she be so sure it was kavanugh when she is so unsure of the other important details like time, place, who was there, who drove her there and back. They would have asked like I said earlier had she received any tangible benefits from an outside group.

They would have questioned why her friend never remembers any such party. They would ask her why she refused to mention by name Kavanaugh to either her therapist or her husband but they didn't they instead worried about the political ramifications of asking tough questions allowed her to skate on the tough issues then hired an incompetent prosecutor that asked a bunch of irrelevant questions.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

8 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

There is so much nonsense there first of all Cosby never denied he had sex he claimed it was consensual so the timing was never as important because the event took place he admitted it. The question was at the time: was it consensual? Clearly it was not. Two the dates we are talking about are much different in cosby case we are talking about a couple of weeks difference to me that isn't unusual and she was specific in her deposition she changed her answer by a couple of weeks she didn't give an entire season!

In Fords case we are talking decades she moves from late 80's, to early 80's, to the specific year of 82 and the season of summer. She claims it deeply affected her life but doesn't remember the time it started not even the year. That is to me not credible.

If the Republicans weren't such cowards they would have questioned her on this. They would have asked why she forwarded the allegation to the media and her democrat congresswoman instead of where it belonged the police. They would ask why to this day has she not filed a police report. They would have asked her how can she be so sure it was kavanugh when she is so unsure of the other important details like time, place, who was there, who drove her there and back. They would have asked like I said earlier had she received any tangible benefits from an outside group.

They would have questioned why her friend never remembers any such party. They would ask her why she refused to mention by name Kavanaugh to either her therapist or her husband but they didn't they instead worried about the political ramifications of asking tough questions allowed her to skate on the tough issues then hired an incompetent prosecutor that asked a bunch of irrelevant questions.

 

 

 

You said here that you can't trust why she didn't remember important details. The accuser Cosby was convicted of reported it over a year later, not until other allegations came forward, and in the initial report she couldn't place the appropriate month between January and March 16. I guess if it was after March 22 it would have made a huge difference since that's a whole season. Thank god for those 6 days or by your standard we should let that guy walk free!

Furthermore, it's fascinating to see how now you have to scramble to that weak sauce "oh it was only a couple weeks not a season". It's interesting that you think you should have credibility to make that assertion after you were caught saying " If you can't name the time" you are "mumbo jumbo from a bunch of quacks", since that statement seems like it would apply pretty well to your lack of memory too.

And beyond that you should be embarrassed over why you keep asking why a person wouldn't go to the police with an accusation that has long since passed the statute of limitation. But as you demonstrated, someone who can't remember something is just spouting "mumbo jumbo from a bunch of quacks". 

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

There is so much nonsense there first of all Cosby never denied he had sex he claimed it was consensual so the timing was never as important because the event took place he admitted it. The question was at the time: was it consensual? Clearly it was not. Two the dates we are talking about are much different in cosby case we are talking about a couple of weeks difference to me that isn't unusual and she was specific in her deposition she changed her answer by a couple of weeks she didn't give an entire season!

In Fords case we are talking decades she moves from late 80's, to early 80's, to the specific year of 82 and the season of summer. She claims it deeply affected her life but doesn't remember the time it started not even the year. That is to me not credible.

If the Republicans weren't such cowards they would have questioned her on this. They would have asked why she forwarded the allegation to the media and her democrat congresswoman instead of where it belonged the police. They would ask why to this day has she not filed a police report. They would have asked her how can she be so sure it was kavanugh when she is so unsure of the other important details like time, place, who was there, who drove her there and back. They would have asked like I said earlier had she received any tangible benefits from an outside group.

They would have questioned why her friend never remembers any such party. They would ask her why she refused to mention by name Kavanaugh to either her therapist or her husband but they didn't they instead worried about the political ramifications of asking tough questions allowed her to skate on the tough issues then hired an incompetent prosecutor that asked a bunch of irrelevant questions.

 

 

 

What does Ford (and her family) have to gain from all of this?

Is Anita Hill's public life any better for having been dragged into a public scandal, or Monica Lewinsky's?

Only if you argue that Ford is getting marching orders (and financial support) from George Soros and the Clinton's (to get revenge for Kavanaugh's Monicagate impeachment involvement) does it make sense for someone like Ford and some of the others to come forward?

 

Think, if this was your daughter/wife/sister...what would your advice to her have been had a similar experience happened?  Do you honestly think that it would be easy to tell her to subject herself to this type of media/international scrutiny?  Why would anyone want to go through it?

Besides, stopping Kavanaugh simply gets another conservative on the court...if she calculated the Dem's were also going to take the Senate and be able to block Trump's nomination process for 2 years, she knows a lot more than every political consultant in the entire world does.

 

[caulfield12]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

And it more than likely prevents him from being indicted. 

Yep, a 5-4 or 6-3 home court SCOTUS advantage only empowers Trump to continue with his divisive behaviors.

The only thing that could change that dynamic is the Senate flipping...right now, it's not even a sure thing McCaskill or Heitkamp will win their races.

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

You said here that you can't trust why she didn't remember important details. The accuser Cosby was convicted of reported it over a year later, not until other allegations came forward, and in the initial report she couldn't place the appropriate month between January and March 16. I guess if it was after March 22 it would have made a huge difference since that's a whole season. Thank god for those 6 days or by your standard we should let that guy walk free!

Furthermore, it's fascinating to see how now you have to scramble to that weak sauce "oh it was only a couple weeks not a season". It's interesting that you think you should have credibility to make that assertion after you were caught saying " If you can't name the time" you are "mumbo jumbo from a bunch of quacks", since that statement seems like it would apply pretty well to your lack of memory too.

And beyond that you should be embarrassed over why you keep asking why a person wouldn't go to the police with an accusation that has long since passed the statute of limitation. But as you demonstrated, someone who can't remember something is just spouting "mumbo jumbo from a bunch of quacks". 

 

My memory isn't weak at all I remember her making an assertion of when the assault took place. Period. I wasn't aware she changed her story by a week at a later date but you are making irrelevant assertions. Miss Ford has still yet to come up with a time or place where it happened as of now and after three times not changing her answer by a week but by years has somehow narrowed down her claim to 92 days but has still yet to give a specific date.

The point was the case would have never been brought forward otherwise and Ford has yet to name a specific date. Why does that matter? Because how is the FBI or really anyone supposed to investigate her claims? How is Kavanaugh supposed to disprove an event the accuser herself doesn't know when it occurred? How is the FBI going to investigate a claim for something she doesn't know the date of and is unsure of where it happened? The only thing they can do is interview the witnesses again and unless they change their testimony nothing changes.

Kavanaugh meanwhile is stuck in an impossible position of trying to restore his reputation against an accusation that doesn't have a time or place. Also it is my understanding from media reports that because of the state the alleged assault took place (she was able to narrow it down that far) it does not have a statue of limitations on attempted rape/rape. If my information is incorrect then I apologize but that is what I got from media reporting.

Edited September 29, 2018 by wrathofhahn