[talaniman]

Big difference between saying he didn't do it and I don't remember the party. Reality and BS! My advise is and has been investigate the allegations. Standard background checks only go back to year 18 unless there is a compelling reason and since she said nothing there is no record. I realize that sometimes all you can do is make a record and file it unresolved, but while you guys were railing what a great guy he was and how credible she was, but had no evidence or a clear memory, and attaching left wing conspiracies you stood fast that after 6 background checks another that went back a bit further wasn't needed, and you were ready to anoint him justice. Then for theater you hire a female to question her, and dismiss her after a question or two during BK's time in the barrel.

That alone didn't pass the smell test and looked RIGGED! I've known this guy for years as a political operative, and a choir boy he never was.

[jlisenbe]

To be clear about this, I have sympathy for Dr. Ford. It would certainly seem that something traumatic happened in her past, and that she today is convinced that Judge Kavanaugh had something to do with. Let the FBI investigate? I'm all for it. Needs to be done with some speed since there aren't many witnesses to speak to, but that's fine with me. But as of today, there is no direct evidence that Kavanaugh was even at the party, much less guilty of what Dr. Ford alleges. I think I would tell her that I am completely willing to believe her story, but something needs to happen to help that process. There are too many forgotten but key details. The witnesses she named have contradicted her story of them being at the party or even, in one case, of knowing Kavanaugh. So even if my heart goes out to her, I'm also aware that I need to be just with Judge Kavanaugh and his family. There just seems to be a mountain of evidence to support his good character. Did he overly indulge alcohol as a young man? Seems likely, and in fact he admits that, but that is a million miles away from proving that he did what Dr. Ford alleges. Now in the minds of some of you that makes me uncaring and anti-female, but I remember the Duke Lacrosse case, the Tawana Brawley case, and a number of others where the lives of innocent men were violently impacted because of accusers who, it turned out, were lying, so I have to admit that it could be the case here. And, of course, Kavanaugh could be lying, but the evidence just does not point in that direction, at least not to me. You are welcome to your own opinion in that regard.

[jlisenbe]

Big difference between saying he didn't do it and I don't remember the party

. I never said they claimed he didn't do it. I did say they contradicted what she said, and that is true. She said they were at the party, but they claimed they were not, and her friend even stated she did not even know Kavanaugh.

Then for theater you hire a female to question her, and dismiss her after a question or two during BK's time in the barrel.

Not sure how the pronoun "you" applies here. I am not a republican and certainly not a senator. I can understand why they chose the lady to ask the questions. As for Kavanaugh, the dems could ask him any question they wanted to. I'm not too sure what they should have asked. "Did you do this? Were you at this party? Did you know Christina Blasey?" He's already answered those questions, so they came down to asking senseless questions about sophomoric entries in a yearbook, flatulence, and the shocking discovery that high school students drink beer to excess.

You haven't told us what you would tell a woman who had been sexually abused but had no evidence to prove it. What would you tell her? That's a wildly tragic and difficult situation.

[paraclete]

You tell her you might be confused about who did what to whom

[jlisenbe]

You tell him you find him guilty when the evidence points towards innocence.

[paraclete]

That is certainly a female point of view, you are guilty because I say so

[tomder55]

read it .... the report from the FEMALE prosecutor who questioned Dr Ford during the Senate Judiciary hearing .


http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...analysis/3221/

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

[jlisenbe]

Save your breath Tomder. If video tape surfaces showing someone else other than Kavanaugh following CBF up the stairs, there are still some on this board who will maintain Kavanaugh's guilt. They see Dr. Ford as representing all of the women who have been abused in this country with no justice ever served. I can see their point of view as to how tragic that is, but trying to make Kavanaugh pay for the collectives sins of others is not the answer.

[talaniman]

I never said they claimed he didn't do it. I did say they contradicted what she said, and that is true. She said they were at the party, but they claimed they were not, and her friend even stated she did not even know Kavanaugh.

I don't think that was a contradiction, she never said they knew of the event she experienced, understandable reaction without an exact time and date, and typical if there was underage drinking was involved. All of which is inconclusive, and begs a closer look.

Not sure how the pronoun "you" applies here. I am not a republican and certainly not a senator. I can understand why they chose the lady to ask the questions. As for Kavanaugh, the dems could ask him any question they wanted to. I'm not too sure what they should have asked. "Did you do this? Were you at this party? Did you know Christina Blasey?" He's already answered those questions, so they came down to asking senseless questions about sophomoric entries in a yearbook, flatulence, and the shocking discovery that high school students drink beer to excess.

My apology for assuming you were a repub, and the pronoun YOU meant not you personally, but the collective views of repubs who speculate and assume without benefit of investigation into the allegations, that this fellow was qualified for SCOTUS, but I feel a lot was papered over or NOT revealed. An innocent man welcomes more scrutiny to clear his name in my view, but KGuy bring specifically catering to the votes he needs raised my suspicions but I KNEW him well before he donned his robes and worked as a politically connected operative know for his hard line and ambitions. Yes I have questioned his responses (CSpan covered the hearings), and history, and I make no bones over the dufus lying all the time about everything, and that makes me question everything he says and does. Now I understand what you want out of KGUY's appointment, likely you will get it... and anything else he brings besides what you want from him.

You haven't told us what you would tell a woman who had been sexually abused but had no evidence to prove it. What would you tell her? That's a wildly tragic and difficult situation.

Read below..

You tell her you might be confused about who did what to whom

How do you know she is confused? Just because you can't believe it, should that stop you from the due diligence of checking it out? Of course not. That requires a process of fact finding. Ask, listen and verify. You should NEVER tell a victim they are confused, you work through that confusion with them, without being dismissive, and I think she has been through and may still be going through that process. That also goes for the accused as to his own veracity, and that goes well beyond whatever image they are projecting. Finding truth is a process. A long one sometimes, years is not unusual.

"Trust but verify!'/Ronald Reagan

[talaniman]

Save your breath Tomder. If video tape surfaces showing someone else other than Kavanaugh following CBF up the stairs, there are still some on this board who will maintain Kavanaugh's guilt. They see Dr. Ford as representing all of the women who have been abused in this country with no justice ever served. I can see their point of view as to how tragic that is, but trying to make Kavanaugh pay for the collectives sins of others is not the answer.

WRONG! While I respect the prosecutors legal assessment and totally agree with it, an allegation of wrongdoing does Not meet the legal requirements of prosecution. The court of public opinion is an entirely different matter, so we got our investigation all we ask is DUE DILIGENCE.

Trump says he is hands off, but is that the truth behind the scene by this WH? TRUST BUT VERIFY is my position. Do I have a doubt that if something dirty comes to light you guys would change your position? I seriously doubt it, even if there was a video of him doing what was alleged.

We'll see.

[jlisenbe]

she never said they knew of the event she experienced,

She said they were there. They said they were not. Kaiser even said she never know JK. She also said Judge was in the room. He says he was not. Sure sounds like a contradiction to me. So if you really believe in "trust and verify", you just ran into a major roadblock on the verify side.

1. The three witnesses she named do not back her story.
2. She can't remember how she got there or got home.
3. She can't remember the date.
4. She can't remember the house.
5. She evidently did not tell anyone about it, including Leland Kaiser, who was at the time her best friend.

Now without pointing fingers at Dr. Ford and not casting aspersions on her character, there is just nothing there at all to support her story. And if you are JK, how can you establish an alibi when you don't know the time or location of the incident? You can't call a witness to testify about what did NOT happen, so she has a story that he has no way to defend himself against other than to say, "I did not do that." I just can't call that justice. I'm not going to brand a man a criminal on the flimsiest evidence possible.

[talaniman]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...gton-p5nvtk37z

Such revelations and allegations cannot go to a court of law at this point, so I guess our debate and the conflicts are a moot point here, but you are entitled to your logic as am I. I'm sure there is much we do not know at this time. I don't stop at my logic though and I hope you don't either.

The above link sort of goes along with Roche's assessment of BK's college reputation.

Do these accounts contradict his answers during his hearing? You tell me.

[jlisenbe]

Such revelations and allegations cannot go to a court of law at this point, so I guess our debate and the conflicts are a moot point here, but you are entitled to your logic as am I. I'm sure there is much we do not know at this time. I don't stop at my logic though and I hope you don't either.

Sounds like a workable plan! Best wishes.

[tomder55]

Very simple …..IF the charges against him prove to be true ,I'll be the first calling for his impeachment from the bench. But this stall game has to end this week . If the full Senate votes against him ..se la vie . Next up Amy Coney Barrett. We'll see what Dr Fraud has to say about her .

[paraclete]

Tell me doesn't the Statute of Limitations kick in here somewhere, these events are somewhere in the distant past whatever the truth, how can they be introduced as any form of evidence? It seems to me the Senate should stop conducting a star chamber and stick to the task at hand, which is weighting the evidence that can be considered

[jlisenbe]

Tell me doesn't the Statute of Limitations kick in here somewhere, these events are somewhere in the distant past whatever the truth, how can they be introduced as any form of evidence? It seems to me the Senate should stop conducting a star chamber and stick to the task at hand, which is weighting the evidence that can be considered.

I would agree with that. Even if the charges are true (and I don't think they are), how far back do we go into a person's life? A person does something stupid as a teen, so now they have to pay the rest of his/her life?

[tomder55]

I am not sure ;but don't believe that Maryland has such a statute of limitations on sexual assault . However ultimately it is irrelevant because this is not a trial . The latest bit of charges involve the amt of drinking he did at Yale.

He did not deny drinking; he said he likes drinking beer; and he said he drank a lot on occasion. So it comes down to some guy's recollection and opinion of what is too much drinking in a college environment . It all comes down to what Vietnam stolen valor Blumenthal and Hire a Chinese spy Feinstein thinks.
Let's be honest here .

I get that it's useless to bring up hypocrisy . Cory Booker wrote an article describing how he groped and he is still a Senator . The same people who supported Clinton for 8 years ,and voted against impeachment when there was material evidence that he did similar or worse ,would now deny Kavanaugh . The same people who rubbed elbows and took donations from Harvey Weinstein knowing he was a sexual predator are sitting in judgement of Kavanaugh The fall back position on all of this will be nothing more specific than character . Kavanugh has a 30 year public record of service that has been investigated 6 times by the FBI ;and a who's who list of people who vouch for his character . 1 week and end this charade .

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/c...mitations.html

[jlisenbe]

1 week and end this charade .

Absolutely. However, how much you want to bet that on Thursday, some "explosive" new detail will emerge that will, according to Cory Booker, warrant several more days of investigation.

Guys, there is one detail of Ford's story that I can't get away from. How did she get home? One would assume she would have come down from the bedroom quite upset. She had no car, and she lived some distance away, so someone had to drive her home. It is beyond amazing to me that she cannot remember how she got home. For that matter, why hasn't the person who drove her home come forward and identified him/herself? If PJ and Leland K were there, surely they would have remembered her emotional (you would think) search for a way home. That is such a mystery to me that I can't get past. And yes, I am not a woman so doubtless I can't relate, but that is still a curious feature of this story.

[talaniman]

I got my eye on this guy Ludington from my previous link.

[tomder55]

yeah I referenced Ludington in my last comment . "

So it comes down to some guy's recollection and opinion of what is too much drinking in a college environment ".

Rachel Mitchell brings up the issue of how she got home in her report to the Senate:

Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country
Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies,
and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere
that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and
subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she
did not look like she had been attacked.
o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward
to identify him or herself as the driver.
o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming
downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she
did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.