I’m starting to think you may be right but not for the same reasons. If they weren’t convinced by Ford’s testimony it’s unlikely they’ll be moved by anything incremental. All this may serve to do is make it more difficult to impeach the fucker when the Dems take power. Like I said before, Flake could have just saved the Pubs in 2018 and 2020. Trump and McConnell would be fuckin nuts to throw a wrench in this. Oh…Wait…I guess we can expect Trump to throw a wrench in this.
Nevertheless, I vote those two women in the elevator get the keys to various cities.
I watched it and it was confusing for me and all involved. But to me, I think the Dems thought Flake wanted to put this into some kind of motion to be voted on. He did not. He just wanted to informally “request” it on the record.
I believe you’re conflating two different things. The processes involved in how you remember witnessing an armed robbery, and how you remember being sexually violated are different.
I feel like this is a hijack, so I’ll just say that I do not believe you are correct, and this can be demonstrated by false memories in sexual abuse cases in the past where it was determined that the events the people involved thought they remembered never happened.
I’m not saying this is the case here, but it could be and if it is it is, again, because people generally don’t understand how their own or others memories work. I’ll leave it at that. If someone wants to open a GQ thread on this I’ll be happy to participate, though I’m no expert. However, a quick Google search will bring up plenty of articles that discuss this in more detail.
This is true and it is the reason why you can’t say, “no one…no person…can be 100% sure of a memory.” People are 100% sure of memories precisely because they don’t know how memory works.
It is probably a hijack but iirc, investigating those false memories ended up proving the opposite. Intense personal events are rarely forgotten so the idea that these memories had to be “recovered” in therapy was extremely dubious. I’ll leave it for another thread though.
So Trump is acting out of character?
You do realise that this could well mean the “offer” is a trap? Order the FBI to a short investigation, give them very narrow terms of references. And they report something like “The balance of probabilities supports Judge Kavanuaghs claims over Professor Fords”.
Sorry. Had to dash out and do some provisioning for the dinner guests I’m expecting tomorrow night.
Procrustus, I would always defer to your opinion in any case, as you are (I believe) a lawyer and I am merely a “judicial type” as a paralegal and in courtrooms as a judge’s assistant. I would defer to most of the lawyers in this forum.
Procedurally speaking, you are correct that double jeopardy attaches a) in a jury trial when the jury is sworn. Also b) in a court trial when the first witness is sworn; and c) in a plea agreement when the plea is accepted by the court.
ThelmaLou, in answer to your solicitation for my opinion (FWIW): In the event the SCOTUS rules so as to eliminate double jeopardy attaching in state proceedings – and I am not persuaded they will – I think what happens is that prosecutors get a lot more creative in how they file their pleadings. Regarding the Meuller probe, e.g., I would expect them to hold back sealed indictments alleging ‘unpardoned’ criminal acts once they saw what Trump would do. I suspect it’s one reason we’ve seen more tangential charges come out of the probe (lying to the FBI, for instance) rather than the more substantive ones. The meatier charges are all indictments under seal.
I can’t really envision how the pending case before SCOTUS matters too much except as it relates to the bizarre situation facing the country with Trump. As a practical matter, federal charges would generally continue to be charged in federal jurisdictions, and state charges continue to be charged in state jurisdictions. It’s rare (in my limited experience only) that the Feds and state officials fight over jurisdiction. I imagine actual prosecutors are better situated to offer opinions on this, though.
As regards our current abnormal situation with this “president,” however, it could matter a lot.
His Spraytannedness is known to not be above throwing people under the bus after they have stuck their necks out for him, if he can use it to his advantage. How anyone sensible still does so is a testament to either the seduction of power or the illusion that “better me than some real loon”.
What they are (probably) going to do is talk to Kavanaugh, Judge, Ford, Ramirez, Swetnick, the other party-goers, and any witnesses Swetnick and Ramirez put forward. They will ask them questions about what they remember, what they don’t remember, inconsistencies, etc. And they will write up what they learn.
I expect they can actually do all that in a week. Much will depend on how hard they push on questioning Judge and Kavanaugh, and whether any witnesses can remember what Ramirez and Swetnick claim.
Basically, they voted to vote. Stupid.
As for the hijack memory question, I have many sibs and can check my 30yo memories. I assure you I can remember significant occurrences with some accuracy. Little things like; did I eat grilled cheese or PBJ, not so much.
I can tell you what the Republican talking point will be:
“Hey, we didn’t need an investigation – or even a hearing – before we knew we would vote for him. We just took one look at him (wink, wink!) and knew he was the white man… I mean, the RIGHT man for the job!”
