Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[Balta1701]

It's totally fascinating to see how, once you get caught not remembering that "not knowing the date" was not a disqualifying issue in one case that you personally brought up...you suddenly say your memory is fine when you've proven it isn't by your own standard. And yes, here's another thing you have misremembered in your effort to smear Professor ford. It's a darn shame your memory is so faulty. You should stop spouting this mumbo jumbo.

Quote

And even if an accuser went to the local department, the statute of limitations appears to have long since passed for pursuing the allegations described in Thursday’s dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.

As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

The Maryland legislature changed the law in 1996, making attempted rape a felony and removing the statute of limitations, according to McCarthy and Jordan.

“But we’d have to apply the law as it existed at the time of the allegations,” McCarthy said.

Other possible charges, such as second-degree assault, remain misdemeanor offenses in Maryland and subject to a one-year statute of limitations, McCarthy said.

“Based on all the allegations I’ve seen so far, there are a number of legal barriers to criminal prosecutions,” Jordan said.

Quote

“Maryland laws on sex crimes have evolved significantly since the early 1980s,” Jordan added in an interview. “In 1982, there was little awareness of the impact of sexual violence, assaults that did not involve vaginal intercourse were not even considered sex crimes, and many viewed sexual assaults by acquaintances as inconsequential. It’s astounding that any woman ever reported rape.”

 

[raBBit]

Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law.

[caulfield12]

58 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law.

Like Merrick Garland?   The GOP simply makes up their own rules as they go along...

[wrathofhahn]

14 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

It's totally fascinating to see how, once you get caught not remembering that "not knowing the date" was not a disqualifying issue in one case that you personally brought up...you suddenly say your memory is fine when you've proven it isn't by your own standard. And yes, here's another thing you have misremembered in your effort to smear Professor ford. It's a darn shame your memory is so faulty. You should stop spouting this mumbo jumbo.

 

I wasn't caught misrembering anything she mentioned a specific date in her accusation period when she revised her statement which I was unaware of she once again mentioned a specific date. You seem think somehow attacking me makes Ford claims more credible. It doesn't.

As far as the rest goes once again the media reported the state did not have a statue of limitations and numerous journalists including Meadow said he could goto jail. If they are wrong then that is unfortunate but that is not my fault I'm not a lawyer I'm only repeating the details I've read elsewhere from mainstream sources but even if the article you posted from the WP is true it still doesn't remove the fundamental question of why she didn't goto the police because she would have been unaware of that nuance in existing law. She made no mention of this in her testimony either infact her statements were the exact opposite of what I was sort of expecting a victim to say she said she went to the media to and her congresswoman to stop Brett Kavanaugh getting to the SC which sounds great at first blush but once you think about it why was that the goal? Shouldn't it been to get justice?

Bringing it back to the actual subject the ladies claim once again the facts haven't changed. She can't name the time, can't name the place, can't name all the people involved, can't remember how she got to the event or how she got back. Has changed the timeframe by close to a decade at points and her claims have been refuted by everyone else who she claims to have been involved. Those are the facts whether someone believes miss ford, believes the mumbo jumbo you spouting earlier, doesn't believe kavanaugh, it shouldn't and doesn't matter. We cannot allow accusations without evidence to ruin political careers or destroy people lives that is a return to some of the darkest chapters of American history like McCarthyism.

 

[Balta1701]

This is just jaw-dropping victim blaming:

Quote

it still doesn't remove the fundamental question of why she didn't goto the police because she would have been unaware of that nuance in existing law

So you actually were there 36 years ago and you can assert that she explained to you the law incorrectly at the time? Because that's what you just asserted. You can't remember things you heard in the press this week, but you are certain she was unaware of what was required to charge a person with rape in Maryland. 

[StrangeSox]

It is entirely possible for people to be sexually abused or raped as a young teen, not report it for one reason or another, and not be able to remember the specific time period it happened decades later.

 

No amount of assertions to the contrary will change that fact.

[wrathofhahn]

50 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This is just jaw-dropping victim blaming:

So you actually were there 36 years ago and you can assert that she explained to you the law incorrectly at the time? Because that's what you just asserted. You can't remember things you heard in the press this week, but you are certain she was unaware of what was required to charge a person with rape in Maryland. 

First of all, there isn't any evidence she was a victim you may believe she was but your beliefs do not constitute facts. Two, she was asked about the way in which she reported the assault at no point did she mention wanting to goto the police and file a report.

In any case it appears there will be an FBI investigation so we shall see. I doubt anything comes of it unless someone comes forward with new testimony or information.

[G&T]

19 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

First of all, there isn't any evidence she was a victim you may believe she was but your beliefs do not constitute facts. Two, she was asked about the way in which she reported the assault at no point did she mention wanting to goto the police and file a report.

In any case it appears there will be an FBI investigation so we shall see. I doubt anything comes of it unless someone comes forward with new testimony or information.

Her testimony is evidence. Stop saying there isn’t evidence. You have two people giving testimony; one lying, one not. In weighing veracity you look at demeanor and truthfulness throughout. Leaving aside the matter at hand, he lied under oath about drinking habits, at the very least, based on third party witnesses and evaded questions which was shown in a Vox analysis. She didn’t do either. This isn’t a hard call.

Also, the committee refused to take other testimony so pointing to a lack of evidence is a dubious argument. 

 

[Balta1701]

 

1 minute ago, G&T said:

Her testimony is evidence. Stop saying there isn’t evidence. You have two people giving testimony; one lying, one not. In weighing veracity you look at demeanor and truthfulness throughout. Leaving aside the matter at hand, he lied under oath about drinking habits, at the very least, based on third party witnesses and evaded questions which was shown in a Vox analysis. She didn’t do either. This isn’t a hard call.

Also, the committee refused to take other testimony so pointing to a lack of evidence is a dubious argument. 

 

The notes of her therapist, statements of the others she told about the assault before he was nominated would also count as evidence. You can also count the strong evidence that he has lied about his history with alcohol and the wide knowledge of the 2nd assault with multiple witnesses as evidence. A sworn statement in the 3rd case would also count as evidence if anyone looked into it.

[Dick Allen]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

First of all, there isn't any evidence she was a victim you may believe she was but your beliefs do not constitute facts. Two, she was asked about the way in which she reported the assault at no point did she mention wanting to goto the police and file a report.

In any case it appears there will be an FBI investigation so we shall see. I doubt anything comes of it unless someone comes forward with new testimony or information.

There is some evidence. She passed a polygraph which seemed to be good enough for Kavanaugh when he was writing opinions. She told friends and therapists well before he was considered for the Supreme Court. 

Kavanaugh has lied about his drinking. Lied about the meanings of phrases in his yearbook. Why? 

The problem with this investigation is the public is only going to see what Trump wants us to see. So if anything comes up, the nomination will be quietly withdrawn. I really am interested in seeing results of the testing of his calendar. Supposedly they can determine how old the ink is on each entry. If he fucked with that anytime since 1982; that may be a problem for him if it ever got out.

i do think nothing will come of it because while they are conducting an investigation, it is partisan investigation. I think the level it would have to get to in a week for Trump to pull him isn’t really possible. But I believe the woman. I know for a fact Kavanaugh lied about other things during his testimony. If he were running for Mayor of Oswego, I might let it slide. But not the Supreme Court, especially when he shows such disgust with democrats.

A clip was shown yesterday during his confirmation for his current job. He stressed how important it was for a judge to remain independent.  Clearly what comes out of his mouth and what really happens are 2 different things.

 

if he is lying about the small stuff, believing him about the big stuff just because he votes for Republicans is pretty foolish IMO.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[wrathofhahn]

2 hours ago, G&T said:

Her testimony is evidence. Stop saying there isn’t evidence. You have two people giving testimony; one lying, one not. In weighing veracity you look at demeanor and truthfulness throughout. Leaving aside the matter at hand, he lied under oath about drinking habits, at the very least, based on third party witnesses and evaded questions which was shown in a Vox analysis. She didn’t do either. This isn’t a hard call.

Also, the committee refused to take other testimony so pointing to a lack of evidence is a dubious argument. 

 

Actually you have four people giving sworn statements. Ford says it happened. Her friend at the time says she was at no such party. Judge says he was never at any such party. Brett says he wasn't at any such party.

This isn't he said - she said this is she said everyone else says and actually there were numerous times I didn't find her statements credible, it's just she just wasn't challenged on those beyond just pointing it out. For example she names 4, 6 , and sometimes five people at the party. For example she claimed she had a fear of flying which is clearly false. For example she says the event deeply effected her life but struggles to narrow it down when it happened not by weeks, not by months, not even by a year but by chunks of years first it was the late 80's then it was the early 80's then it was the summer of 82 (92 days). For example she says she is 100% certain it was kavanaugh but is unsure of the time, place, and who else was there. She never mentions Kavanaugh by name to either husband or her therapist. Nor to anyone else for 30 some odd years until now. For example there is no record of her going to the police.

Kavanaugh calendar indicates he likely wasn't at a party during the summer in question. I hope the FBI asks her those questions and I also hope she is able to narrow it down to an actual day so Kavabaugh has a chance to respond to her claims other then with blanket denials.

[Dick Allen]

13 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Actually you have four people giving sworn statements. Ford says it happened. Her friend at the time says she was at no such party. Judge says he was never at any such party. Brett says he wasn't at any such party.

This isn't he said - she said this is she said everyone else says and actually there were numerous times I didn't find her statements credible, it's just she just wasn't challenged on those beyond just pointing it out. For example she names 4, 6 , and sometimes five people at the party. For example she claimed she had a fear of flying which is clearly false. For example she says the event deeply effected her life but struggles to narrow it down when it happened not by weeks, not by months, not even by a year but by chunks of years first it was the late 80's then it was the early 80's then it was the summer of 82 (92 days). For example she says she is 100% certain it was kavanaugh but is unsure of the time, place, and who else was there. She never mentions Kavanaugh by name to either husband or her therapist. Nor to anyone else for 30 some odd years until now. For example there is no record of her going to the police.

Kavanaugh calendar indicates he likely wasn't at a party during the summer in question. I hope the FBI asks her those questions and I also hope she is able to narrow it down to an actual day so Kavabaugh has a chance to respond to her claims other then with blanket denials.

There are no such statements. The only one saying it didn’t happen is the proven liar.

Her  friend doesn’t remember, Judge says he doesn’t remember, and they were letters from attorneys not the sworn affidavits subject to perjury Kavanaugh said, they were.

 

i would think someone expecting one party to have all the facts perfectly lined up from a trauma 36 years ago, would have his from this week

Edited September 29, 2018 by Dick Allen

[G&T]

31 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Actually you have four people giving sworn statements. Ford says it happened. Her friend at the time says she was at no such party. Judge says he was never at any such party. Brett says he wasn't at any such party.

This isn't he said - she said this is she said everyone else says and actually there were numerous times I didn't find her statements credible, it's just she just wasn't challenged on those beyond just pointing it out. For example she names 4, 6 , and sometimes five people at the party. For example she claimed she had a fear of flying which is clearly false. For example she says the event deeply effected her life but struggles to narrow it down when it happened not by weeks, not by months, not even by a year but by chunks of years first it was the late 80's then it was the early 80's then it was the summer of 82 (92 days). For example she says she is 100% certain it was kavanaugh but is unsure of the time, place, and who else was there. She never mentions Kavanaugh by name to either husband or her therapist. Nor to anyone else for 30 some odd years until now. For example there is no record of her going to the police.

Kavanaugh calendar indicates he likely wasn't at a party during the summer in question. I hope the FBI asks her those questions and I also hope she is able to narrow it down to an actual day so Kavabaugh has a chance to respond to her claims other then with blanket denials.

Her friend doesn’t remember and also says she believes Ford. Judge doesn’t remember and nobody wants him to testify. So no. And I think you are grasping at straws in drawing conclusions about memory and trauma without some support. 

And the “failure to report” argument is so weak. She did tell her therapist that the perpetrator was a federal judge.

Anyway, you don’t believe her. Fine. It’s fine to believe Kavanaugh is a liar (because he is) but that he isn’t lying about this incident. 

Of course that should still eliminate him from the nomination. 

[wrathofhahn]

1 hour ago, G&T said:

Her friend doesn’t remember and also says she believes Ford. Judge doesn’t remember and nobody wants him to testify. So no. And I think you are grasping at straws in drawing conclusions about memory and trauma without some support. 

And the “failure to report” argument is so weak. She did tell her therapist that the perpetrator was a federal judge.

Anyway, you don’t believe her. Fine. It’s fine to believe Kavanaugh is a liar (because he is) but that he isn’t lying about this incident. 

Of course that should still eliminate him from the nomination. 

Which means nothing. Ford claimed she was there and therefore could corroborate her claims and she can't. We also have no idea whether she told her therapist he was a judge she admitted she gave an overview of the notes to the press verbally not the notes themselves. That was one of the questions asked the only two people who have seen the notes were her and her lawyer.

Of course that is sort of one of the problems of the prosecutor she asked the question but never followed up with the significance of Fords answer. People were sort of left to draw their own conclusion.

Also I find certain aspects of her story not credible others are. I would have liked to have the right questions asked and had a better picture of how the allegation came about and the possible motivations might be besides what she gave. I also would have liked her to have given a more specific date so rather then a blanket denial we could have heard what Kavanaugh was doing that day. He offered up a calendar it would be very easy to refute or corroborate her claims.

In any case the democrats got their wish there will be an FBI investigation so really I am more confident in the details that come from that then any congressional testimony.

 

[Dick Allen]

4 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

Which means nothing. Ford claimed she was there and therefore could corroborate her claims and she can't. We also have no idea whether she told her therapist he was a judge she admitted she gave an overview of the notes to the press verbally not the notes themselves. That was one of the questions asked the only two people who have seen the notes were her and her lawyer.

Of course that is sort of one of the problems of the prosecutor she asked the question but never followed up with the significance of Fords answer. People were sort of left to draw their own conclusion.

Also I find certain aspects of her story not credible others are. I would have liked to have the right questions asked and had a better picture of how the allegation came about and the possible motivations might be besides what she gave. I also would have liked her to have given a more specific date so rather then a blanket denial we could have heard what Kavanaugh was doing that day. He offered up a calendar it would be very easy to refute or corroborate her claims.

In any case the democrats got their wish there will be an FBI investigation so really I am more confident in the details that come from that then any congressional testimony.

 

How would a 36 year old calendar refute anything? There are plenty of places he went that weren’t listed on his calendar. Church for one. 

[wrathofhahn]

11 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

How would a 36 year old calendar refute anything? There are plenty of places he went that weren’t listed on his calendar. Church for one. 

Well if it ever gets narrowed to a specific day they could followup where he said he was and how he spent his time that day. I think honestly made a major mistake releasing it he should have just said he had it and not released it until the accusation had a specific date.

Now the opposing counsel can basically go over his day to day life in 82 and pick a day where he had the most free time.

Edited September 30, 2018 by wrathofhahn

[Dam8610]

13 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

How would a 36 year old calendar refute anything? There are plenty of places he went that weren’t listed on his calendar. Church for one. 

In fact that calendar has a very interesting event on July 1, 1982 that matches up nearly perfectly with what Blasey-Ford described. The prosecutor Republicans brought in to question both parties thought it interesting enough to question Kavanaugh about. Oddly enough, when she started that line of questioning was exactly when Lindsey Graham had his little tirade, and the committee never went back to her after that to finish her line of questioning. Isn't that all very peculiar?

[Dick Allen]

50 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

In fact that calendar has a very interesting event on July 1, 1982 that matches up nearly perfectly with what Blasey-Ford described. The prosecutor Republicans brought in to question both parties thought it interesting enough to question Kavanaugh about. Oddly enough, when she started that line of questioning was exactly when Lindsey Graham had his little tirade, and the committee never went back to her after that to finish her line of questioning. Isn't that all very peculiar?

It’s all peculiar. If you get caught in a lie during an interview to make French fries at McDonalds, you are eliminated from consideration. Consistently lying during a Supreme Court process, no big deal. 

Lie and yell. It’s the new way.

now Kenyannesays she was sexually assaulted. Did she or her loving parents report it to the police?

Edited September 30, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Quin]

https://www.brettkavanaugh.beer/

[wrathofhahn]

10 hours ago, Dam8610 said:

In fact that calendar has a very interesting event on July 1, 1982 that matches up nearly perfectly with what Blasey-Ford described. The prosecutor Republicans brought in to question both parties thought it interesting enough to question Kavanaugh about. Oddly enough, when she started that line of questioning was exactly when Lindsey Graham had his little tirade, and the committee never went back to her after that to finish her line of questioning. Isn't that all very peculiar?

Not really. The prosecutor had a very specific purpose which she failed miserably doing so.

As far as the calendar goes I would have never released it to opposing counsel I think it was a mistake for the very reason you mention. Ford basically has an allegation without a time or place the media and her counsel will use that calendar to try to find a date and place where their allegations fit.

Which beyond being unfair it's extremely dangerous standard the date and place she alleges the assault should come from her memory not his calendar.

[pettie4sox]

Guys help my degenerate ass.  Do you guys think he gets confirmed or not?  Right now it's a +210 for a non-confirm on Bovada.

[Quin]

33 minutes ago, pettie4sox said:

Guys help my degenerate ass.  Do you guys think he gets confirmed or not?  Right now it's a +210 for a non-confirm on Bovada.

Well, Flake said if the FBI finds that he lied in his hearing that Kavanaugh is "done." So take that for what its worth.

[Dick Allen]

6 hours ago, pettie4sox said:

Guys help my degenerate ass.  Do you guys think he gets confirmed or not?  Right now it's a +210 for a non-confirm on Bovada.

Yes. This investigation will not look at anything regarding his drinking. It will be limited to a he said/she said thing. Trump has full control, Lying during his testimony, which is easy to confirm, because he did several times won’t be part of it. 

[StrangeSox]

Boy this sure looks like a very legitimate investigration

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

Boy this sure looks like a very legitimate investigration

 

 

 

This was the problem. Trump was running the investigation. We all know the Republicans are hiding things. The only thing this fake investigation does is buy time for something else to come out. But they aren't going to investigate anything that will put this guy in a bad light.