Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2451  
Old 09-22-2018, 10:51 AM
UnwittingAmericans UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'll bring this up for a third time in this thread: five prosecutors say
The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are not simply a 'he said, she said' situationAnd:
Feel free to click on the link and find out what makes her allegations credible in the eyes of five prosecutors.
Meh, I see all five of those prosecutors on MSNBC every night. Their list of corroboration is not that strong, particularly the last bit about about "why would X do Y if Z was (or wasn't) true?" That is a common tactic, but honestly, it reminds me of Nancy Grace.

I hope she'll testify in open session next week, it will probably sway a lot of people. I'm starting to get a vibe that her people may not think she's up to it, they're handling her like a christmas ornament. Testifying privately won't have anywhere near the impact.
  #2452  
Old 09-22-2018, 10:52 AM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
OK, here's a question I have: how did Ed Whelan know the identity of the unnamed female guest at the party that may or may not have happened?
I agree this is an interesting head-scratcher.

On one hand, you’d think Kavanaugh and/or his allies wouldn’t be that stupid and careless as to mount a defense founded on details that had not been disclosed by Ford. Wouldn’t that be a rookie mistake? Wouldn’t a seasoned lawyer see this quicksand pit from 500 miles away and deftly avoid it? Who doesnt realize this is how dumb criminals who talk to cops without having a lawyer present often incriminate themselves? For all we know, the names of all the female party attendees might be known by Ford but at the advice of her lawyer, she withheld that information specifically to see if Kanavaugh would knee-jerkingly reveal awareness of their names. Could he be that incompetent as to fall for that?

On the other hand, Team Kanavaugh was apparently dumb enough to think coming out with the doppelgänger theory made a lick of strategic sense. So this tells us that we can’t assume too much about their competence and sophistication. Anything therefore is possible.
  #2453  
Old 09-22-2018, 10:58 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The Republicans in the Senate -- refusing to conduct a full investigation -- are the ones not taking this seriously, and making it a political game. The non-political and serious way to handle this would be to delay a vote for a full objective investigation into these allegations. The only concerns about timing are political. There's no deadline except a political deadline.
if Feinstein took this seriously it would have been the first thing on the list in the process of vetting Kavanaugh. Not only was it not the first, it wasn't even the last. It was after the fact. the hearings were over.

There's literally nothing to investigate at this point. By her own recollection she wasn't raped or prevented from leaving a party that she claims she attended 36 years ago with boys from a different school. She doesn't know the exact date or location and makes no mention of such an event taking place for another 30 years.

Yes, the only concern about the timing is political. It's a deliberate attempt to delay the nomination and Feinstein owns this 100%.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #2454  
Old 09-22-2018, 10:58 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Now, putting aside all politics, is this a plausible or at least possible scenario?
The best I can say about this is that it's not the rapiest thing said in the thread. That it's entirely hypothetical fiction intended to discredit a person who claims to be the victim of sexual assault gives us a good idea of how low the bar is. Quick, someone find James Cameron.
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.
  #2455  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
if Feinstein took this seriously it would have been the first thing on the list in the process of vetting Kavanaugh. Not only was it not the first, it wasn't even the last. It was after the fact. the hearings were over.
Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is treat the allegation seriously and investigate.

Quote:
There's literally nothing to investigate at this point. By her own recollection she wasn't raped or prevented from leaving a party that she claims she attended 36 years ago with boys from a different school. She doesn't know the exact date or location and makes no mention of such an event taking place for another 30 years.
Many, many sexual assault and investigative professionals feel the opposite, and I'm inclined to go with their take over yours. It's indeed quite possible to find out facts about events from as far back as three decades ago. Not a slam dunk, but still a chance of finding out more information.

Quote:
Yes, the only concern about the timing is political. It's a deliberate attempt to delay the nomination and Feinstein owns this 100%.
Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is to treat the allegation seriously and investigate. The only reason not to is political.
  #2456  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:03 AM
Fiveyearlurker Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not trying to minimize the work that you do, but I am sure that it is not on the level of the United States Senate and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Further, I'm sure that if the meeting was time sensitive and you believed that one of the participants was simply making excuses to continue delaying the meeting, you would not be as gracious in granting continuing extensions.

What could she possibly be doing that is more important than this? If she is attending a funeral of a family member, then I could understand. Merely being pissy and calling a certain date "arbitrary" is a power play.
There are two days next week that if I got called before Congress to testify, I would have to say that I could not attend, and it would have to be a different day. I don't say that because I'm so self important, but because I think I'm pretty typical.
  #2457  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:03 AM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,270
This is getting to be bigger than some rat-fuck political hack being promoted to a position of enormous power that he does not merit. Very few of us do, which is why we have to be so damned careful!

Here's the thing: the soft guys with the wobbly bits have a problem, and the problem is us. Fixing it is going to be a bear. Now, does that mean that some partisan woman will make shit up? Yes. It does. Being an immoral jerk is bad, but it is a choice. The power of equality is the power to choose. When political power became more available to black people, some ambitious jerks seized the opportunity to become a well-paid and comfortable defender of the oppressed. Human, all too human. Not a good reason to give up. Not even close.

And they're gone past asking, and headed straight into demanding. Good. Let's help. Do it for Mom.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #2458  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:04 AM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Or, you know, she could have shit to do on Wednesday. I set meetings all the time. It requires a few emails back and forth to decide on a day. I've never just set a meeting day and insisted upon it if someone can't make it.
Are your meetings with 21 Senators of the United States Congress?

It seems that the more power the institution has the more the institution tends to set its own timeline. It is capricious in a certain way, but it is the prerogative that comes with holding such power.

Courts set trial dates and send subpoenas to have witnesses appear on a particular date, not whenever it might be convenient. The courts have the power to do so and may penalize willful noncompliance if it comes to that.

But the local beat cop asking for your statement as a witness to a traffic accident may very well bend to your schedule. At least those officers I worked with routinely did.

Last edited by Iggy; 09-22-2018 at 11:05 AM.
  #2459  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:05 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What are these "several things"?
I'm going to start you off with an easy one. A big fat meatball right over the heart of the plate.

Quote:
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
Are these details corroborated or uncorroborated?
  #2460  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:07 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
For those of us inclined to see sexual assault and rape as a very serious problem that is far, far more important than political concerns, the statements to her therapist and husband, Mark Judge's writings about his own and friends' drunken bad behavior, and the statements from her friends noting how much she changed after the incident (which they weren't aware of at the time), add up as making the allegations credible enough that they should be taken seriously.

Of course, for anyone who sees this merely as an opportunity to get a conservative on the SCOTUS, and that anything that might possibly delay that should be seen in the most negative/dishonest light as possible, and that sexual assault and rape in society is a relatively minor thing compared to that, these pieces of data aren't likely to be seen as convincing.

If Kavanaugh is innocent, an investigation really could help him. Hard as you might find it to believe, there are plenty of us who don't know for certain what happened, and could be swayed in one direction or another by a full and objective investigation. Not everyone has already made up their mind.
First, this is an extremely unfair characterization that unless a person believes that such things add up to corroboration, then he or she is simply a partisan whore wanting a conservative on the Supreme Court. I have defended guys from allegations far worse than this in criminal court. These guys weren't conservative judges. At a base level, I have a problem with mere accusations causing someone else harm, whether that be prison, public approbation, or losing a seat on the Supreme Court. I have no ulterior motive here.

Second, from my own life experience, most people are generally decent, all are capable of evil given the wrong circumstances, and that many, many people are kooks and liars. I don't know Prof. Ford to be able to say with any certainty at all what category she falls in. And you don't either. In your zeal to make sure that victims of sexual assault receive justice, you are willing to accept a level of evidence that would be unlikely to convict someone of speeding. It resembles the standard of proof for witchcraft in Salem in 1692. I know that is not your intent, but it will be the inevitable result.

Finally, I agree with the previous poster that your examples are not corroboration at all:

1) So Mark Judge admits that he and his friends (presumably Kavanaugh) were hard partiers. That means nothing. I'm sure many posters here can recount some of their stupid younger moments. To suggest that as corroboration that Judge, let alone his friends, tried to rape women is a stretch at best. Plus, if you are going to make up a story to implicate Kavanaugh, why not put Judge in the room as well so that any denial he makes will make Kavanaugh look guilty by implication?

2) The statements to her husband and therapist. Her therapist's notes tell a different story than hers. Plus, in that instance, she had an incentive to tell a self-serving story to save her marriage. What a great out to a spouse. Honey, I haven't been doing all of these things to you for all of these years because I'm a nasty person, I've done it because of this repressed memory of a sexual assault I suffered. Who would leave their spouse after that? Plus, the timing is suspect as well. Romney could have won and Kavanaugh was on the top list of conservatives to the Court. She has made her political positions well known.

3) Statements from friends about how she changed. People always change through their teen years. A person's strange actions could be a result of an infinite number of things. There are times in my life that I have acted in ways that to my friends would seem "strange." It doesn't mean I was raped. This is silliness at best.

Now, you'll probably say that an FBI investigation (and only that) could suss out some of these details to give the senators a clearer picture. I submit that it will not. You will get more of the same crap. People saying that Kavanaugh was wonderful and would never do that. People saying that Ford is/was wonderful and would never make up a story. People denying such a party took place. People remembering a similar party. People saying that Ford is a crazy, kooky woman. People saying she is level headed.

The FBI investigation would be worthless, but you would likely say that there is no harm in it so go ahead and do it. But the delay just happens to coincide with Democratic desires to continue to delay the process until after the midterms and also just hope that because we cannot prove this allegation, that maybe enough bad shit will come out to convince two of the three of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski to vote no.

I mean, that's the whole reason to subpoena Judge. He's already said that he doesn't remember a similar party and never saw Kavanaugh do such a thing. What is the point of his testimony other than to embarrass him about his drinking and hope that enough of Judge's actions get transferred to Kavanaugh? Please name one relevant detail that Judge could provide.
  #2461  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:16 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonky View Post
I hope that any person on this board who had any remaining shred of respect for you has lost it. They should have lost it long before, but this is just like a little extra shit frosting on your shit cookie.

Whether you believe this horrifying nonsense you are spewing or you are just employing it for cynical purposes, you are a disgusting boil. You spread corruption and ignorance and you'll never face any repercussions for it.

I'm out. There are a lot of great people on this board, but staying here is like staying at a party where everyone has your shit on their shoes: the stench is disgusting and a nasty disease all too likely.
Personal attacks mean you got nothing. I have said many times that I have no idea whether this allegation is true, partially true, or absolutely false. I am just running through possibilities, but your side seems to say that he is guilty, no other possibility. That, in my mind, says more about your side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
I agree this is an interesting head-scratcher.

On one hand, you’d think Kavanaugh and/or his allies wouldn’t be that stupid and careless as to mount a defense founded on details that had not been disclosed by Ford. Wouldn’t that be a rookie mistake? Wouldn’t a seasoned lawyer see this quicksand pit from 500 miles away and deftly avoid it? Who doesnt realize this is how dumb criminals who talk to cops without having a lawyer present often incriminate themselves? For all we know, the names of all the female party attendees might be known by Ford but at the advice of her lawyer, she withheld that information specifically to see if Kanavaugh would knee-jerkingly reveal awareness of their names. Could he be that incompetent as to fall for that?

On the other hand, Team Kanavaugh was apparently dumb enough to think coming out with the doppelgänger theory made a lick of strategic sense. So this tells us that we can’t assume too much about their competence and sophistication. Anything therefore is possible.
That is indeed interesting. I wouldn't think that a third year law student would make such a stupid move. Criminals? Yes. Lawyers? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I'm going to start you off with an easy one. A big fat meatball right over the heart of the plate.



Are these details corroborated or uncorroborated?
Of course those details are corroborated, but that doesn't corroborate the allegation. Unless you are saying that any woman who went to high school in a two county area from me has corroborating if she would make a similar allegation against me. I mean, hell, if a guy is murdered in your hometown is that corroboration that you killed him?
  #2462  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:17 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First, this is an extremely unfair characterization that unless a person believes that such things add up to corroboration, then he or she is simply a partisan whore wanting a conservative on the Supreme Court. I have defended guys from allegations far worse than this in criminal court. These guys weren't conservative judges. At a base level, I have a problem with mere accusations causing someone else harm, whether that be prison, public approbation, or losing a seat on the Supreme Court. I have no ulterior motive here.

Second, from my own life experience, most people are generally decent, all are capable of evil given the wrong circumstances, and that many, many people are kooks and liars. I don't know Prof. Ford to be able to say with any certainty at all what category she falls in. And you don't either. In your zeal to make sure that victims of sexual assault receive justice, you are willing to accept a level of evidence that would be unlikely to convict someone of speeding. It resembles the standard of proof for witchcraft in Salem in 1692. I know that is not your intent, but it will be the inevitable result.

Finally, I agree with the previous poster that your examples are not corroboration at all:

1) So Mark Judge admits that he and his friends (presumably Kavanaugh) were hard partiers. That means nothing. I'm sure many posters here can recount some of their stupid younger moments. To suggest that as corroboration that Judge, let alone his friends, tried to rape women is a stretch at best. Plus, if you are going to make up a story to implicate Kavanaugh, why not put Judge in the room as well so that any denial he makes will make Kavanaugh look guilty by implication?

2) The statements to her husband and therapist. Her therapist's notes tell a different story than hers. Plus, in that instance, she had an incentive to tell a self-serving story to save her marriage. What a great out to a spouse. Honey, I haven't been doing all of these things to you for all of these years because I'm a nasty person, I've done it because of this repressed memory of a sexual assault I suffered. Who would leave their spouse after that? Plus, the timing is suspect as well. Romney could have won and Kavanaugh was on the top list of conservatives to the Court. She has made her political positions well known.

3) Statements from friends about how she changed. People always change through their teen years. A person's strange actions could be a result of an infinite number of things. There are times in my life that I have acted in ways that to my friends would seem "strange." It doesn't mean I was raped. This is silliness at best.

Now, you'll probably say that an FBI investigation (and only that) could suss out some of these details to give the senators a clearer picture. I submit that it will not. You will get more of the same crap. People saying that Kavanaugh was wonderful and would never do that. People saying that Ford is/was wonderful and would never make up a story. People denying such a party took place. People remembering a similar party. People saying that Ford is a crazy, kooky woman. People saying she is level headed.

The FBI investigation would be worthless, but you would likely say that there is no harm in it so go ahead and do it. But the delay just happens to coincide with Democratic desires to continue to delay the process until after the midterms and also just hope that because we cannot prove this allegation, that maybe enough bad shit will come out to convince two of the three of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski to vote no.

I mean, that's the whole reason to subpoena Judge. He's already said that he doesn't remember a similar party and never saw Kavanaugh do such a thing. What is the point of his testimony other than to embarrass him about his drinking and hope that enough of Judge's actions get transferred to Kavanaugh? Please name one relevant detail that Judge could provide.
You're the one prejudging this situation, and prejudging a potential investigation, not I. I don't know what happened. A full investigation would have a non-zero chance of turning up more information. It's just ridiculous to be certain that it wouldn't. Judge might be lying in his letter, but unwilling to lie under oath, for example. That would be very helpful in finding more facts out. They might be able to find other attendees of the party who might remember something important -- perhaps Ford running out of a bedroom, or disappearing suspiciously, or something else.

Alternately, the investigators might find something that would cast suspicion on Ford's account -- suspicious payments, or some previous statement she made about how she hated Kavanaugh ever since he rejected her for a date in high school, or countless other possibilities.

Judge could provide the following details if he answers honestly:

Does he ever remember being at a party with Ford? Does he ever remember any interaction between Kavanaugh and Ford? Does he remember heavy drinking at parties in the summer with Kavanaugh? And much more.

It really is reasonable to want an investigation, regardless of politics. I was the first Doper (IIRC) to call for Al Franken to resign after he was credibly accused -- sexual assault and rape are more important than politics. We shouldn't be seating a SCOTUS justice without fully investigating such allegations and making sure he isn't lying about it. Especially not in the present, not if we want the SCOTUS to be seen as a legitimate arbiter of law.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-22-2018 at 11:18 AM.
  #2463  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:26 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Of course those details are corroborated...
I claimed that several details of her story were corroborated.

You asked what are some of those details.

I gave an example.

You apparently now agree that details of her story have been corroborated.

We're getting somewhere.
  #2464  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:34 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're the one prejudging this situation, and prejudging a potential investigation, not I. I don't know what happened. A full investigation would have a non-zero chance of turning up more information. It's just ridiculous to be certain that it wouldn't. Judge might be lying in his letter, but unwilling to lie under oath, for example. That would be very helpful in finding more facts out. They might be able to find other attendees of the party who might remember something important -- perhaps Ford running out of a bedroom, or disappearing suspiciously, or something else.

Alternately, the investigators might find something that would cast suspicion on Ford's account -- suspicious payments, or some previous statement she made about how she hated Kavanaugh ever since he rejected her for a date in high school, or countless other possibilities.

Judge could provide the following details if he answers honestly:

Does he ever remember being at a party with Ford? Does he ever remember any interaction between Kavanaugh and Ford? Does he remember heavy drinking at parties in the summer with Kavanaugh? And much more.

It really is reasonable to want an investigation, regardless of politics. I was the first Doper (IIRC) to call for Al Franken to resign after he was credibly accused -- sexual assault and rape are more important than politics. We shouldn't be seating a SCOTUS justice without fully investigating such allegations and making sure he isn't lying about it. Especially not in the present, not if we want the SCOTUS to be seen as a legitimate arbiter of law.
You don't think that there is an investigation going on right now? I'll bet you a shiny nickel that a guy who worked at Dairy Queen in 1982 who served Brett Kavanaugh a vanilla ice cream cone has his voice mailbox full from messages from reporters.

Every left wing operative is out there looking for evidence that Kavanaugh is a drunken rapist and every right wing operative is out there for evidence that Ford is a lying whore.

Do you disagree with me that this allegation of sexual assault is being investigated more than any other such allegation in the history of the world? This is worlds better than an FBI investigation as those agents have ethics and must respect civil liberties. Journalists are generally ethical as well, but those who are not ethical are out there paying bribes and making threats. This "we must have an FBI investigation" is a talking point. Nobody who is sexually assaulted gets an FBI investigation unless it was interstate in nature or occurred on Federal property.

The Maryland authorities who would properly investigate this, if they deemed it fruitful, have never been contacted about it. The FBI has declined to investigate and this type of discretion is not unusual. Law enforcement resources are limited and running around on a wild goose chase about stuff that happened last century does not seem like a legitimate use of law enforcement resources.

Also, to the extent that you felt that I was implying political motivation, I apologize. I was merely commenting on the fact that in cases of allegations of sexual assault, you tend to believe the accuser first, either without evidence or upon flimsy evidence.
  #2465  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:36 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I claimed that several details of her story were corroborated.

You asked what are some of those details.

I gave an example.

You apparently now agree that details of her story have been corroborated.

We're getting somewhere.
Yes, she is also a female named Christine Blasey Ford, so that detail is corroborated. I guess he is guilty.

In any event, I was asking for details of substance that have been corroborated.
  #2466  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:38 AM
you with the face you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 11,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonky View Post

I'm out. There are a lot of great people on this board, but staying here is like staying at a party where everyone has your shit on their shoes: the stench is disgusting and a nasty disease all too likely.
I feel you, man. This shit is getting ridiculous. We’re now at the point that Kanavaugh is being made to look like Lenny from Of Mice and Men, and this is in his defense. A teenaged drunkard of a football player whose “hijinks” included putting a younger schoolmate in mortal fear while groping her body against her will...and yet he’s the one whose credibility is assumed by default. We’re being asked to accept that even if this is how the whole thing went down, it’s nothing to worry about at all. So what if this caused her psychological harm well into middle age. Why should his youthful hijinks come back to haunt him now?

Please don’t leave. If sane voices disappear from this board, I shudder to think what this community will become.
  #2467  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:47 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes, she is also a female named Christine Blasey Ford, so that detail is corroborated. I guess he is guilty.

In any event, I was asking for details of substance that have been corroborated.
Number one you didn't ask for 'details of substance'. I can't imagine why you would claim that you did.

Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated.

Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated.

None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance.
  #2468  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:52 AM
Corry El Corry El is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1. This Monday versus Thursday versus Wednesday is simply a power play. This is the U.S. Senate, not a doctor's appointment. Be there when it is scheduled.

2. Further, it is terribly disingenuous to want to testify after Kavanaugh. What possible reason could there be for that other than to let him deny what you have already said and then spring additional things on him that he will not have the chance to rebut?

Simply asking for such a thing lowers her credibility in my eyes and in many others. Does anyone on this board think it is fair not to allow Kavanaugh a chance to rebut her testimony?

3. Objecting to outside counsel. Again, who in the hell is she to dictate procedure? Further, there can be no other reason for that than she wants to give Booker, Kamala Harris, and Hirono a national spotlight to continue to smear Kavanaugh with outrageous attacks and to "question" her by telling her how wonderfully courageously courageous she is.
1. I can conceive of a non-bad faith reasons for this and it's relatively trivial either way. But I agree it's not a service provider appointment and the net bad reflection is on Ford's camp if that's the deal breaker, IMO.

2. This one in my opinion is really outrageous and absolutely necessary for the Senate (whichever party) to reject. It's an ageless principal of both law and general fairness that if somebody accuses you of something you get to hear it as directly as possible from them, then respond to it. It would be very hard to come up with a valid reason to overturn that idea and I don't see what it would be in this case.

That principal is also being modified from the formal legal version by agreeing Kavanaugh doesn't have to physically be there, but that's fine IMO. We now have audio/video, whereas the original idea of *facing* an accuser was in part for the accused not to have to rely on other people's accounts of what was said and without knowing the tone, body language etc.

But demanding that a person accused respond to allegations before hearing them in full, just based on partial information in a news story, is a ridiculous demand which I agree alone seriously undercuts Ford's credibility.

3. I agree this is also pretty plainly politically tactical. The idea is to preserve the narrative of 'insensitive white males' as 'interrogators' besides insuring a political stage for the Democrats you mentioned and others. There's no rational basis why the committee can't use outside counsel to ask questions it decides to ask. If the majority of the committee is GOP (or Dem), 'elections have consequences'. No honest person believes the Democrats would act other than to maximize their political position with shoe on other foot, as they are trying to do as is.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-22-2018 at 11:55 AM.
  #2469  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:15 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Number one you didn't ask for 'details of substance'. I can't imagine why you would claim that you did.

Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated.

Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated.

None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance.
I guess we have different definitions of "corroboration." All this shows is that she was familiar with who Judge and Kavanaugh were in high school. Anyone who attended school in the area or was in the same social circles of the two could tell you the exact same thing. Anyone that Judge or Kavanaugh confided in the subsequent 36 years could tell you the same thing. It is not evidence, substantial or otherwise, that a sexual assault occurred.

If anything, it diminishes the claim, because, if the claim is false, who better to put in the same room with Kavanaugh than a known drunk who admitted to blacking out at parties? It is much easier to fabricate allegations against people you know because you can sprinkle in verifiably true details into your otherwise false (if it is false) narrative.
  #2470  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:21 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Now, putting aside all politics, is this a plausible or at least possible scenario?
No, dude. This is ludicrous. Concocting some elaborate story based on essentially nothing in order to discredit someone is ludicrous.

Reserving judgment is actually you know, reserving judgment. Not it could be X, it could be Y, etc.
  #2471  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:23 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Where does she say this? Linky, please!!

Oh, that's right: the conservatives on this board have a talented crew of mind-readers, able to discern the intents and motivations of people they've never interacted with.
I'm confused. What do you want a "linky" to? The fact (I assumed was a universally understood) that Dr. Ford wanted to remain anonymous? Okay, here's a linky:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/polit...ons/index.html

I could probably come up with hundreds of other similar linkys. She would, in fact, be anonymous to this day if it weren't for some pesky leakers that are nearly ubiquitous in the world of politics.

Perhaps you want a linky that she wanted to remain anonymous to avoid blowback onto herself.

I honestly cannot conceive of why a person would want to remain anonymous for any other reason than to avoid blowback. Do you NOT think she wanted to avoid blowback?

But, in any case, I think that can be strongly infered by her lawyer's statement in that very same article:

Quote:
Katz said her client "was not wanting to inject herself into this. Because who would want to incur this kind of really highly politicized attack game that she now finds herself in? She was fine with that decision, but that decision was taken away from her after the hearings when her allegations were essentially leaked."
Is that sufficient?

Last edited by Ashtura; 09-22-2018 at 12:25 PM.
  #2472  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:31 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Number one you didn't ask for 'details of substance'. I can't imagine why you would claim that you did.

Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated.

Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated.

None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance.
Missed the edit window: Again, assuming her allegation are false, what if there was indeed an event where all parties recall being present? Say there was an Independence Day party on July 4, 1982 where there was a picture of Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge sitting by the pool and drinking beer.

If Ford said that after that party, Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, would you consider that corroboration? To me, all that shows is that it would not have violated the laws of physics for the assault to have occurred. However, it still says nothing of Ford's veracity, or indeed of Kavanaugh's veracity. To me, that is not evidence of anything other than they were at a party.

It would be like saying that Anita Hill's allegations against Clarence Thomas had corroboration because we can prove that they both worked together. I'm not trying to be dense, but I'm trying to figure out how this is evidence of anything.
  #2473  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:39 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
... I've never just set a meeting day and insisted upon it if someone can't make it.
Yes, but you're not representing 21 senators.
  #2474  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:43 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
... What the hell are you talking about? How is Kavanaugh, or anyone else, supposed to answer a claim if they have not heard it ...
I've wondered this too. What does the Ford-should-go-last crowd expect Kavanaugh's testimony to consistent of? Is he supposed to testify against the fragmented media reports? Deleted FaceBook posts? Ford's letter (which, I believe Feinstein still has not released an unredacted copy of)? Predict what Ford may say in the future and testify against that? It's totally nonsensical for Ford to testify last.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-22-2018 at 12:44 PM.
  #2475  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:44 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Number one you didn't ask for 'details of substance'. I can't imagine why you would claim that you did.

Number two. These are details of substance. Part of what makes her claim credible is that she claims to have been in the same social circles of as Kavanaugh and details of those claims have been corroborated.

Another claim she makes is that Kavanaugh and his pal Mark Judge were heavily drinking partiers back in high school. Details of this claim have also been corroborated.

None of this is proof, but it does speak to the credibility of her claim because several details of her claim have been corroborated. Details of substance.
Corroboration that has nothing to do with the details of the alleged attack that would not be know by parties not involved would be interesting. But saying she ran in the same social circles is nothing of substance.

As an example, in the general sense, it would be relevant corroboration if a person making allegations of sexual assault is able to correctly describe the interior of a private space, such as the accused's bedroom, that would not be commonly known.

But in the specific case since Ford apparently cannot recall the location of the residence involved then making a similar statement that could be corroborated would be quite difficult in the current year.

So far Ford seems to allege that she can provide testimony about an incident but no physical evidence. And so far Kavanaugh seems to be willing to provide testimony that he never engaged in such behavior with any woman. A serious question is what, if anything, can be offered in the way of evidence that could be independently corroborated at this point?

As much as Whelan's doppleganger theory has been dismissed he at least was trying to corroborate details provided in Ford's allegation in order to try to identify the house where the alleged attack occurred. Since Ford describes going into an upstairs bedroom then it stands to reason that the house in question would have more than one story. Ford describes going into a bathroom across from the bedroom so the house in question would have an upstairs bathroom. Those are corroborating details, though not particularly specific ones. Any more specific details that could be independently corroborated would be helpful in verifying or disputing the truthfulness of her claims.
  #2476  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:47 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
There are two days next week that if I got called before Congress to testify, I would have to say that I could not attend, and it would have to be a different day. I don't say that because I'm so self important, but because I think I'm pretty typical.

It just doesn't work that way with legislative and judicial bodies. If the WV Supreme Court tells me to be there next Wednesday, it just won't work for me to tell them that I can't be there because I have nobody to watch my dog that day. Perhaps if I had to attend a funeral that day, they would accommodate. What I would not get away with is telling them that Thursday and Tuesday are just as good and just as "arbitrary" as Wednesday and to fuck them that I'll be there on the day of my choosing.

Hundreds, if not thousands of people will need to be there for this Ford/Kavanaugh hearing. If we tailored it to everyone's individual schedule, it would never happen.
  #2477  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:56 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Sure, if he was being charged.

But this isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a proceeding designed to get at the truth. The party with something at stake here is "we, the people," and only incidentally Brett Kavanaugh. Ford and Kavanaugh are witnesses, not plaintiff and defendant. They should not be privy to one another's testimony before their own testimony.
Emphasis added. Use any word you'd like, and Kavanaugh should know what the <insert your word of choice here> against him is. Much has been made of Ford's demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I'd say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact <insert your word of choice here> which I an supposed to be addressing.
  #2478  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:15 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,690
I would hope that the first question Ford is asked is when she has or is planning to report this allegation to the police, so an investigation can start. That's the biggest thing missing at the moment, and the thing that makes it look like a political thing.

The FBI have already peformed multiple background checks on him, and they (presumably) have found nothing to suggest he's a sexual predator. If that's not the case, and they have found such evidence, it should be released. Otherwise, what are people expecting from another background check?
  #2479  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:17 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Emphasis added. Use any word you'd like, and Kavanaugh should know what the <insert your word of choice here> against him is. Much has been made of Ford's demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I'd say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact <insert your word of choice here> which I an supposed to be addressing.
Once again, I cannot recommend enough, Sadakat Kadri's The Trial.
It charts the history of most of the procedures used. Lets just say they aren't placed there willy nilly, most of them have come through bitter experience.

One of the most common excuses for violations of fundamental rights is that the accused is too powerful and prominent to be handled by ordinary judicial proceedings, the other that "this is not a Criminal Court/just an investigation, inquiry".

You would think the United States would not want to recreate the fucking Star Chamber or the Inquisition in the 21st century.
  #2480  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:20 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I guess we have different definitions of "corroboration."
I am using the actual definition of corroboration. You, a lawyer, are not.

Some details in her story have been corroborated. Details of substance. That's a fact.

In other news... you have your own thread.
  #2481  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:27 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It just doesn't work that way with legislative and judicial bodies. If the WV Supreme Court tells me to be there next Wednesday, it just won't work for me to tell them that I can't be there because I have nobody to watch my dog that day. Perhaps if I had to attend a funeral that day, they would accommodate. What I would not get away with is telling them that Thursday and Tuesday are just as good and just as "arbitrary" as Wednesday and to fuck them that I'll be there on the day of my choosing.

Hundreds, if not thousands of people will need to be there for this Ford/Kavanaugh hearing. If we tailored it to everyone's individual schedule, it would never happen.
You need to explain the reason for the timing for us to begin to discuss whether it's not arbitrary.
  #2482  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:28 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
... the statements from her friends noting how much she changed after the incident (which they weren't aware of at the time) ..
This is the first I've heard of this bit. Cite?
This is also the first I heard of anything of the sort. Didn't Ms. Ford's best friend and college roommate tell (IIRC The New York Times) that no mention was ever made, and her roommate didn't observe anything. As a matter of fact, the roommate said Ms. Ford contacted her via Facebook shortly before deciding to make the allegation to check if she had ever mentioned it before. Which seems a little out of the ordinary - Ms. Ford says the attack put her into a tailspin, but doesn't recall if she ever mentioned it to her best friend.

So that friend in particular doesn't say anything resembling that she was changed, or mentioned it. The first time anyone seems to have heard anything from Ms. Ford was in 2012, where her therapist says Ms. Ford said she was attacked by four people, and doesn't mention Kavanaugh or Judge. Now five years later, she says she remembers it was two people and who they were, and that the therapist's contemporaneous notes don't report what she said.

Regards,
Shodan
  #2483  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:31 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly
Sure, if he was being charged.

But this isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a proceeding designed to get at the truth. The party with something at stake here is "we, the people," and only incidentally Brett Kavanaugh. Ford and Kavanaugh are witnesses, not plaintiff and defendant. They should not be privy to one another's testimony before their own testimony.
Do you mean that neither should be privy to each other's testimony, or only that Kavanaugh should not be privy?

Is there a reason that it will be harder to get at the truth if Kavanaugh hears the testimony but not if Ford does?

Besides, Ford was offered the chance to testify in private, and turned it down.

Regards,
Shodan
  #2484  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:37 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I am using the actual definition of corroboration. You, a lawyer, are not.

Some details in her story have been corroborated. Details of substance. That's a fact.

In other news... you have your own thread.
So in other words, you've got nothing except for a Pit Thread. Fine. I'm not interested in those type of childish games. In fact, you are playing into my main argument that there is no reason or consideration when it comes to these types of allegations, simply personal attacks.

If you would like to respond to the substance of my response, I'll be glad to engage.
  #2485  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:42 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It just doesn't work that way with legislative and judicial bodies.
Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia?
  #2486  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:43 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I'm confused. What do you want a "linky" to? The fact (I assumed was a universally understood) that Dr. Ford wanted to remain anonymous? Okay, here's a linky:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/polit...ons/index.html
You skipped over the part where she wanted to both remain anonymous AND have her story kept confidential.

You're saying she wanted her story to come out and destroy Kavanaugh while her identity remained secret.

CITE??????????????????
  #2487  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:44 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,296
Next final deadline's in 45 minutes. Wonder what'll happen.
  #2488  
Old 09-22-2018, 01:48 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Emphasis added. Use any word you'd like, and Kavanaugh should know what the <insert your word of choice here> against him is. Much has been made of Ford's demands to the committee, but if I were Kavanaugh I would not agree to testify without a clear understanding of exactly what I am testifying about. If I were made to do so, I'd say as little as humanly possible and plead the 5th a lot saying I prefer to answer that question once I understood the exact <insert your word of choice here> which I an supposed to be addressing.
I hear it has to do with some sort of party that he may or may not have been present at.
  #2489  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:02 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia?
Sure it does. But if a judge thinks that you are using the motion simply to delay it will not be granted. If you tell the judge that the cable guy is coming that day, it will not be granted. Continuances are granted for good cause, not because I petulantly demand it.

ETA: "Good cause" is flexible depending on the type of hearing. If it is just a status hearing, then maybe the cable guy coming is good enough for the judge. If it is a final jury trial scheduled for weeks, then you had better be dead and then your dead body had better have a good excuse for not appearing.

Last edited by UltraVires; 09-22-2018 at 02:04 PM.
  #2490  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:02 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Still trying to figure out if Kavanaugh could be criminally charged if Ford decided to try. After a bit of searching that didn't turn up much, I figured I'd page through The Baltimore Sun (figuratively speaking) and found this interesting article:

Quote:
Gov. Hogan rules out state police investigation of Kavanaugh allegations


The Republican governor [of Maryland] was asked at a news conference about a letter Democratic state Sen. Cheryl Kagan of Montgomery sent him. She urged Hogan to take the step because the White House has not ordered the FBI to look into the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford about Kavanaugh’s actions at a high school party.

Hogan said he had not heard about the request, but he immediately turned it down.

<snip>

Legal experts doubt that a case could be made against Kavanaugh even if someone makes a complaint.

For one thing, if attempted rape in the first degree was the most appropriate charge, that was a misdemeanor in the 1980s in Maryland. It did not become a felony in the state until 1996. Former Attorney General Doug Gansler, who also served as Montgomery County state’s attorney, noted that Maryland’s statute of limitations for misdemeanors for an offense committed in the 1980s expired long ago.
  #2491  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:05 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is treat the allegation seriously and investigate.
It's completely relevant. Feinstein treated it with all the seriousness she deemed it was worth. There was a hearing specifically to vet Kavanaugh. It's over and this isn't new evidence that's come to light. It was always there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Many, many sexual assault and investigative professionals feel the opposite, and I'm inclined to go with their take over yours. It's indeed quite possible to find out facts about events from as far back as three decades ago. Not a slam dunk, but still a chance of finding out more information.
Not one shred of evidence. Which is why Feinstein didn't bring it to the hearing in the first place. There is literally nothing to investigate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is to treat the allegation seriously and investigate. The only reason not to is political.
There's no evidence to investigate.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #2492  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:07 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,270
Attempted rape, first degree, was a misdemeanor? Certainly, things have improved, having gone from terrible to not very good.
  #2493  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:11 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You skipped over the part where she wanted to both remain anonymous AND have her story kept confidential.

You're saying she wanted her story to come out and destroy Kavanaugh while her identity remained secret.

CITE??????????????????
I'll cite myself, since that's not what I said. I said, and I quote:

Quote:
It should be noted that Dr. Ford wanted this to be done anonymously to avoid blowblack on herself, and perhaps naively believed she should could levy such an accusation against a prominent figure in the national arena without that happening. She was, of course, gravely mistaken. Oops.
Now, I am going to try to deconstruct what I think your apparent misinterpretation is of what I said. When I am referring to "the national arena", that is a continuation of the string of words "a prominent figure in the national arena", being Kavenaugh. NOT "<a story> in the national arena."

The accusation itself made it up to a United States Senator and apparently was meant to stay there. It stretches credibility that a high level politician would be expected to read this letter and just sit on it, but, uh, sure. And, I still think it's awfully naive to think that she could make such an allegation against a friggin SCOTUS nominee during one of the most highly politicized time in recent history and remain anonymous. But, again, oops.

Any further questions?

Last edited by Ashtura; 09-22-2018 at 02:14 PM.
  #2494  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:12 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Still trying to figure out if Kavanaugh could be criminally charged if Ford decided to try. After a bit of searching that didn't turn up much, I figured I'd page through The Baltimore Sun (figuratively speaking) and found this interesting article:
Also:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace's Article
Even if charges could be brought, Gansler said that based on the accounts he’s seen, it would be difficult to prove an alleged assailant had the intent to complete a forcible rape and would not have stopped short of that.
I'm glad a Democrat said it. When I say it, I get called all kinds of nasty names, the truth of the assertion be damned.

I know nothing of MD law, but find it amazing that attempted rape was a misdemeanor in MD until 1996. In my state, any attempt to commit a felony is a felony, and any attempt to commit a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor.

So, if the assertions are true, it should put an end to claims for a criminal investigation. The SOL has expired and Kavanaugh cannot be prosecuted.
  #2495  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:12 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,017
New facts have already come out in the few days since this allegation became public, such as Whelan knowing the accuser’s name before it was made public, the writings about O’Kavanaugh, statements by other people in that social scene, etc. And that is without putting key people like Judge under oath. The idea that there are no possible new facts to be learned from investigation is absurd motivated reasoning.

This has already been one of the fastest confirmations in the modern era of hearings. Delaying a couple of days is nothing. The massive resistance to any half-serious investigation shows the GOP is afraid of what else might emerge.

Last edited by Richard Parker; 09-22-2018 at 02:15 PM.
  #2496  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:16 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Now, all I know about courts comes from watching Ally McBeal and LA Law, but I saw TV lawyers ask for a “continuance.” Is that just a TV thing - like “zoom and enhance” - or does such a motion not exist in West Virginia?
You need to have reasonable grounds to be granted one. Time to prepare your brief will be routinely granted as a matter of course. But it is the Court which controls its calendar, not the parties. They'll accommodate the parties and Counsel within reason, but, you can't go around making demands and expecting them to be accepted.
  #2497  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:17 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sure it does. But if a judge thinks that you are using the motion simply to delay it will not be granted. If you tell the judge that the cable guy is coming that day, it will not be granted. Continuances are granted for good cause, not because I petulantly demand it.

ETA: "Good cause" is flexible depending on the type of hearing. If it is just a status hearing, then maybe the cable guy coming is good enough for the judge. If it is a final jury trial scheduled for weeks, then you had better be dead and then your dead body had better have a good excuse for not appearing.
Unlike with a trial, nobody is waiting for this and needs it rushed. We can do without another justice on the court, and in fact can go for a year or even more that way. So any assertion from a so called "judge" in this matter about "delays" is tainted by the rush to judgement that the whole proceeding represents.

So the "judge" in this case should demonstrate the exigency, the reason he needs to make deadlines, or else he fails to be a judge in this matter, but is just a partisan fixer.
  #2498  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:28 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I've got CNN on, and no "breaking news" yet. Two minutes to go.
  #2499  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:30 PM
drad dog's Avatar
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 5,764
"If we don't get this insane clown presidents nominee of a teenage blackout drunk on the court right now then it may be too late. We may not get another pick at all. We burned the party to the ground to get this one little thing, and no female is going to get in the way. Of course this is a national emergency!"
  #2500  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:30 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,270
Why do we have to take the chance? There's no other option, here, nobody with such sterling reputation? We must be certain beyond a reasonable doubt, and if not that, well, we just roll the dice, see what happens?

Kavanaugh is a tactical missile from the extreme right, his loyalty is his one salient characteristic, it is the driving force behind his upward climb. Is anyone here proud to see his work as one of Kenneth Starr's minions? Anyone want to say that outside of his work as a Republican operative, he would have shot straight up the greasy pole anyway? Because he is a star in the legal sky? Why isn't doubt a good and sufficient reason?

(Typed "minion" and autocorrect tried to make it "minyan". Wake up, America!)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017