Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 165
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yeah, it looks like Kavanaugh is grandfathered in. I still think it makes sense that it should be, for the reasons already given.

    It strikes me that most of your points about the need for a SoL are centred around the inability to prove the allegations and the repercussions on an innocent person who is unable to defend themselves against a decades-old accusation.

    However, as already described, there have been multiple cases where victims only bring forth allegations after a long period of time, and most only after others have brought forth allegations against the same alleged assaulter. The example of child-raping priests comes to mind.
    Do you deny that the lack of a SoL in such cases is a good thing, and that having a SoL would prevent those rapists from seeing justice?

    It seems there are two considerations to be made regarding how late we should allow allegations to be made. One is the risk of ruining potentially innocent folks' reputations, lives, and possibly even the lives of their family. The other is the risk of allowing actual rapists and assaulters to go unpunished because their victims are unable to bring forth allegations until some time has passed.

    You use your son as an example of the former consideration, but in support of the latter consideration, all you need to do is imagine that you instead had a daughter who was assaulted while quite young and was unable to tell anyone, just like many other victims. Do you deny that the same protective emotions you've expressed about your son would cause you to be just as if not more protective about your daughter and therefore want her assaulter to be punished no matter how much time had passed?

    I guess it all comes down to a trade-off of how bad the alleged crime is vs. how much damage could be done to the accused if innocent. This appears to be reflected in how most states' SoLs exist for lesser crimes, while the worse crimes have no SoL. It's a trade-off between us not wanting to allow really bad folks to go unpunished vs. our fear of damaging someone innocent.
    First, I appreciate that you googled the SoL issue in Maryland and didn't make this an issue. I know several other posters on here who would have demanded links and wasted my time. So, thank you.

    Second, I don't completely disagree with you on SoL. For crimes like murder, where the evidence does not necessarily go away, not having an SoL seems appropriate. For a crime like sexual assault, where it is very often one person's word against the other, I just do not think you can let the chargers linger for very long. And a crime like sexual assault is often (not always), but often, a matter of interpretation. If a guy clumsily makes a pass at a woman, is it a failed attempt to have sex or is it sexual assault? In the moment it may feel one way. Days later it may feel like something else. Years later it may yet feel different again. And that, as much as the waning evidence is an issue I have with removing SoL from these kinds of crimes. The memories don't just fade over time, they often interpret things differently over time. I cannot say how I'd feel about this if I had a daughter. I'm trying to be fair.

    ---------- Post added at 07:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So, I watched both their opening statements. My motivation tends to be to take folks at face value until I see a reason not to. So, can be bad at spotting good liars.

    Both of the felt genuine and seemed earnest. I am inclined to believe them both for that reason. Which is to say, I'm inclined to think that for the most part, they believe what they say is the truth. The emotion they both showed seemed genuine and neither is an actor by trade.

    I get from Ford that she's swimming up-stream here, feels self-righteous and after many years of trying to get stronger has decided this is the hell she's going to die on. So she's facing her demons and doing this.

    Kavanaugh strikes me as a man who feels he's being treated unjustly and is angry about that, and horrified for his family. But I also see that he is deeply guilty, and a little tortured by what he did in that period of his life. I think he thinks he never meant harm, but he knows he caused harm. Not to Ford, but to his family and to some of the women he went to school with (especially the woman referenced in his yearbook).

    So there are two ways they can both be telling the truth that strike me as plausible
    1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford and doesn't remember because he was as drunk as he was described to be
    2. Ford was mistaken about the identity of who assaulted her

    Frankly, I lean to the first. I honestly have a prejidous agaisnt people getting drunk. I've never been drunk myself, but I've seen normally "good people" do some terrible things when drunk. Both out of sheer stupidity, and out of a lack of their normal inhibitions.
    Which is not to say the second is implausible, it is entirely plausible which is why I listed it.

    That said, I think if he did think he'd done it, he'd be horrified by it, ashamed of it. Perhaps so much so he can't allow himself to beleive it. Unlike, say, our president, I don't think molesting women is part of his normal character. I do think getting **** faced drunk is part of his normal character, though I doubt that's a common thing for him now compared to highschool and colldge. I definately have more sympathy for him watching his testimony as I don't think he's lying, though I also think he's holding back some of the truth. (nearly anyone would)

    So having seen that, I'm less sure how I'd vote on him. I think he did something here more likely than not, but I also think he was drunk out of his mind. So it dosn't speak to his concious character so much as his inner pathos and his poor character as a teenager in deciding that getting drunk alot was a good idea.

    Its a good lesson in why getting drunk is generally not a good idea. You may well do something that you wouldn't normally, that comes back to haunt you in a big way. He'd be far from the first to have that happen. He's still not the kind of person I much like, but I have a bit more sympathy for him. He clearly does have love for many of the people in his life past and present.

    I think its a challenging question. If you did something to badly hurt someone as a teenager, while drunk. 38 years later, what consiquences and responsibility should you bear, and how should you be judged for it? Does it make a difference if you don't even remember it?
    I think there are numerous ways you can look at what may have happened. Maybe the she didn't really feel like she had been sexually assaulted until much later. Maybe, she was drunk and regretted what happened. Apparently, she was quite the partier in HS as well. Maybe, she wants to believe something happened and convinced herself K did it. Maybe she is crazy. I mean, we know she lied during the and leading up to the hearing. I'll give a single example. She had claimed she couldn't make the hearing on Monday due to her fear of flying. Turns out she flies regularly and was already on the East Coast. Hmmmm. Just one example.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,092
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yeah, it looks like Kavanaugh is grandfathered in. I still think it makes sense that it should be, for the reasons already given.
    I'm not so sure. The GOPs prosecutor brought up in questioning that the possibility of prosecution in Maryland was still possible and Kavanaugh agreed that was his understanding. I assume this was an attempt to discredit her - why hadn't she filed charges yet if it was so important to her.

    He also has other problems that may lead to impeachment.

    ---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Maybe the she didn't really feel like she had been sexually assaulted until much later.
    Why would that have mattered? Though by her own testimony that's not what happened.

    ---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'll give a single example. She had claimed she couldn't make the hearing on Monday due to her fear of flying. Turns out she flies regularly and was already on the East Coast. Hmmmm. Just one example.
    An extremely poor example of political hackery on your part.

    "It wasn’t long until those who continue to support Kavanaugh jumped on Ford’s testimony about her trips in an attempt to discredit her. Donald Trump Jr., the President’s son, said that “it does seem weird to me that someone could have a selective fear of flying.”"

    Maybe weird to you, Junior:

    "But flying on an airplane despite having flight anxiety is a common practice, according to Tom Bunn, a former airline captain who’s now a licensed therapist. Bunn, who works with those afraid to fly through a program called SOAR, said that one in three people have a fear of flying. Of that third, half are willing to fly, while half are not."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Second, I don't completely disagree with you on SoL. For crimes like murder, where the evidence does not necessarily go away, not having an SoL seems appropriate. For a crime like sexual assault, where it is very often one person's word against the other, I just do not think you can let the chargers linger for very long.
    Again, the reason for allowing sexual assault victims more time is the proven difficulty in coming forward. This reasoning has nothing to do with the reasoning behind no SoL for murder such as evidence still in existence, although I would also argue that the same reasoning about evidence existing also applies to sexual assault, since testimonies do count as evidence, especially when there are details within testimonies which can be corroborated by actual physical evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I cannot say how I'd feel about this if I had a daughter. I'm trying to be fair.
    Then you don't necessarily deny that if the situation were reversed, you'd want your child's claims to be investigated regardless of the SoL - you're just not sure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Maybe the she didn't really feel like she had been sexually assaulted until much later. Maybe, she was drunk and regretted what happened. Apparently, she was quite the partier in HS as well. Maybe, she wants to believe something happened and convinced herself K did it. Maybe she is crazy.
    Maybe, but wouldn't you agree that a careful FBI investigation would help uncover whether behind these maybes there are actual facts which could then be used to better determine whether these credible allegations are true?

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,202
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think there are numerous ways you can look at what may have happened.
    True. I was just trying to narrow it down to what I thought was the most plausible.

    Maybe the she didn't really feel like she had been sexually assaulted until much later. Maybe, she was drunk and regretted what happened.
    I feel like the specific details she provides make that less plausable (but not implausible mind you) than it being someone else. To swap a name or an idea of who someone is seems more likely than to change the whole character of the encounter, especially as where that had a lot of detail in terms of what situation she was in and why it was assault. (she was pinned down, her mouth was covered so she couldnt scream, they locked the door, they played covering music, she hid in the bathroom and more) None of that is easy to mistake for some akward teen sexuality except possibly being pinned down. But... to get a name wrong of someone you don't know well, that seems more plausible if we are looking for a way for her memory to be wrong.

    Apparently, she was quite the partier in HS as well.
    At least a little (since she was at this party), but I haven't seen anyone specifically claiming that myself yet.

    Maybe, she wants to believe something happened and convinced herself K did it.
    Again, from the details I've seen, and my assessment of the testimony, that seems unlikely to me.

    Maybe she is crazy.
    Again, my post was based on my impressions of the two. She didn't seem crazy to me and there are no reports she is crazy. Same goes for Kavanaugh

    I mean, we know she lied during the and leading up to the hearing. I'll give a single example. She had claimed she couldn't make the hearing on Monday due to her fear of flying. Turns out she flies regularly and was already on the East Coast. Hmmmm. Just one example.
    How is that a lie? When someone is afraid of flying it doesn't mean they don't fly. I have family members that are afraid of flying. It freaks them out, but they still fly when they have to. It becomes a big production and all but they get it done, especially when they are doing it for something they want to do. But when they don't want to do something it's definately an added reason they give for not wanting to do it.

    She said clearly in testimony she was hoping she could testify from where she lived, but she realized that she'd either have to fly to washington or it wasn't happening. So she did that. I don't see any reason to think she is lying about her fear.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    General impression, nothing has changed. We still can not accept her testiomony as true because we have several oppsong witnesses. One she says was. At the party claims to not know judge k. Two that say it never happened. Haven't read the fourth. There is no context that given such testimony we should take action based on the single claim. That would be irresponsible. The prosecuter who asked the questions said she wouldn't even issue a search warrant based on what was offered. So.. that is that. Move on.
    Again if there is a reason, it should be that people have a responsibility to speak up about crime at the time or in a timely manner. A person is justified to discount her testimony based on political timing, because it adds the appearance of a political motive. That is her fault, and reasonable people can't be asked to simply "believe the victim" because no one can know who that is now. It could be her or judge k. .. or both.

    That said.. I do think the judge is a clear psyco .. who keeps a calendar of events from highschool? Clearly he needs help
    To serve man.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    We still can not accept her testiomony as true because we have several oppsong witnesses. One she says was. At the party claims to not know judge k. Two that say it never happened.
    Well, that's not entirely accurate. Nobody other than Kavanaugh has actually made any statement that what she's claiming did not happen. They simply stated that they have no memory of it. Her friend, while she didn't witness the event and has no memory of it, has stated that she believes that it happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no context that given such testimony we should take action based on the single claim.
    The precedent repeatedly referred to by proponents of an FBI investigation is the Clarence Thomas investigation. Do you disagree that this past even serves as precedent warranting a similar investigation now? If not, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again if there is a reason, it should be that people have a responsibility to speak up about crime at the time or in a timely manner.
    As has been repeatedly explained, and is supported by the fact that the worse sexual misconduct crimes have no Statute of Limitations in a number of states, victims of such crimes often are unable to come forward until much later.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A person is justified to discount her testimony based on political timing, because it adds the appearance of a political motive.
    That Ford herself had some political motive has been roundly refuted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    reasonable people can't be asked to simply "believe the victim"
    If the claims are credible, then it stands to reason that they should be believed.

  7. #67
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,250
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True. I was just trying to narrow it down to what I thought was the most plausible.



    I feel like the specific details she provides make that less plausable (but not implausible mind you) than it being someone else. To swap a name or an idea of who someone is seems more likely than to change the whole character of the encounter, especially as where that had a lot of detail in terms of what situation she was in and why it was assault. (she was pinned down, her mouth was covered so she couldnt scream, they locked the door, they played covering music, she hid in the bathroom and more) None of that is easy to mistake for some akward teen sexuality except possibly being pinned down. But... to get a name wrong of someone you don't know well, that seems more plausible if we are looking for a way for her memory to be wrong.



    At least a little (since she was at this party), but I haven't seen anyone specifically claiming that myself yet.



    Again, from the details I've seen, and my assessment of the testimony, that seems unlikely to me.



    Again, my post was based on my impressions of the two. She didn't seem crazy to me and there are no reports she is crazy. Same goes for Kavanaugh



    How is that a lie? When someone is afraid of flying it doesn't mean they don't fly. I have family members that are afraid of flying. It freaks them out, but they still fly when they have to. It becomes a big production and all but they get it done, especially when they are doing it for something they want to do. But when they don't want to do something it's definately an added reason they give for not wanting to do it.

    She said clearly in testimony she was hoping she could testify from where she lived, but she realized that she'd either have to fly to washington or it wasn't happening. So she did that. I don't see any reason to think she is lying about her fear.
    Again, do you/we really know anything about her to determine if she is mentally stable or anything else? All we do know is that none of her claims could be corroborated. And some of claims seem false and/or misleading. In terms of high school drinking
    https://www.realclearinvestigations....yearbooks.html
    "In fact, Ford was known as a "party girl” on the Delaware shore during summer breaks, another source with direct knowledge of the congressional investigation said."
    I am not saying it refutes her claim of sexual assault. However, it does call into question her claim she absolutely had only one beer. Again, was she actually as truthful as some people are believing she is?

    Regarding the flying issue. She claimed she could not attend the hearing on Monday because of her fear of flying claiming she'd need to drive. In fact, she did fly to Washington and actually flies quite often.
    https://constitution.com/fords-fear-...g-confessions/

    Again, not a direct refutation of her claim. However, if we are claiming she has been perfectly honest throughout this ordeal, I'd suggest we pump the brakes on that notion.

    In fact, many of the claims she has made which can be corroborated have turned out to be false or at odds with her claim.
    1) She claimed she told her therapist in 2012 about Mr K. However, the therapist notes do not support this.
    2) She claimed there were two people in the room. However, the therapist notes say there were 4. The number of people in the room and at the gathering has changed a few times. Now, we can agree that memory of an event 35 years ago can elicit some amount of misremembering and clarifying. I am just pointing out that this is another instance of something she has claimed, but was refuted.
    3) She claimed she could not fly to the hearing. She flew to the hearing.
    4) She claimed she knew she had a single beer. Per her year book, she appeared to be a heavy drinker. Not direct refutation. However, just another example of when any actual evidence to her story can be found, it generally does not support her story.

    Then there are the little facts of the matter which call into question things like motive and that raise general suspicion.
    1) She couldn't remember if she gave the WaPo reporter her therapist notes. Just seems kind of an odd thing to not remember when it happened just a week ago.
    2) She didn't know who paid for the lie detector test.
    3) She didn't know if the lie detector test was recorded.
    4) She used a lawyer referred to her by Senator Feinstein's office. Is that normal?

    I list the above, which is not comprehensive, but covers a lot to show that Dr. Ford has a lot of holes in her credibility as a witness. I think the impression people got from watching her at the hearing was that she was a credible accuser. However, this may have been because the GOP chose (or at least the person the chose to question her), didn't really drive home the gaps in her story. They kind of backed off and chose not to attack her nor defend Mr. K. So, it is easy to watch the hearing and get the impression that she was a solid witness. In reality, I don't think she was all that solid and in an actual court room, she'd have gotten shred. Probably one reason why charges were never and will never be filed (regardless of the SoL).

    Finally, when it was all said and done, not a single person has backed her story. Not one. One of her witnesses went so far as to say she had never met Mr. K. Never met him.... Think about that. This isn't just claiming that she couldn't remember a specific party or couldn't remember hanging out with someone. She had never met him. Couple that with Dr. Ford's inability to give a time, date, or place and this is just a baseless accusation.

    To Futureboy's question about whether an FBI investigation is needed:
    No. Not really. What do you want them to investigate? All the supposed witnesses have signed statements saying they either do not remember the party or the party never happened. On top of that, Mr. K. has already undergone something like seven FBI background checks. The FBI has already gotten statements from everyone who has ever known him going back prior to high school and nothing like this ever came out. The whole FBI investigation call just seems like more grandstanding and a waste of time. I believe that allowing for such an investigation only rewards Democrats for truly unseemly behavior. Had they wanted an investigation, then Feinstein could have leaked Dr. Ford's letter a month ago instead of a week ago. She could have actually gone to the head of the judiciary committee and asked for the investigation in such a manner that Dr. Ford's identity would have stayed anonymous. So, at this point, I say sorry. And I know people have pointed to the Clarence Thomas investigation as precedent. However, let's remember, he was accused of sexual harassment as a government employee. The FBI was completely warranted and within their jurisdiction to investigate. It should also be remembered that while the FBI said they could find nothing to corroborate Ms. Hill's claims and Thomas was nominated, the cloud from the Hill accusations still resonate. In fact, even today, despite being cleared by an FBI investigation, Democrats still insinuate Thomas was guilty. So, I think dragging this thing out with another investigation is just rubbish and a complete waste of time and money. Put his nomination to a vote and if it fails move on to the next candidate.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,092
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1) She claimed she told her therapist in 2012 about Mr K. However, the therapist notes do not support this.
    Wrong, she testified that she brought the incident up with her therapist on many occasions and identified Mr. Kavanaugh. The therapist notes mention it twice but did not record the name.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, do you/we really know anything about her to determine if she is mentally stable or anything else?
    And again, an FBI investigation would help prove that if it were true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No. Not really. What do you want them to investigate?
    The allegations, and whether the statements made by each are true. Numerous benefits of the FBI's involvement have already been referred to in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    All the supposed witnesses have signed statements saying they either do not remember the party or the party never happened.
    Have any witnesses actually stated it never happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    On top of that, Mr. K. has already undergone something like seven FBI background checks. The FBI has already gotten statements from everyone who has ever known him going back prior to high school and nothing like this ever came out.
    This does count as evidence that it did not happen, nor that it could not have happened. The FBI background checks aren't meant to dig up decades-old issues, since that not what they're looking for (https://www.boston.com/news/politics...inst-kavanaugh).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The whole FBI investigation call just seems like more grandstanding and a waste of time.
    At least a few Republicans (enough to put the next vote in jeopardy) have now also requested an investigation in return for their approval, asking that the next vote be delayed by only 1 week for the investigation to run its course. So the claim that they're trying to waste time until the election is unfounded. Today's events show that the Dems' true goal in requesting an investigation to try and get to the bottom of this is so that there would be an investigation to try and get to the bottom of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Had they wanted an investigation, then Feinstein could have leaked Dr. Ford's letter a month ago instead of a week ago.
    That is absurd. Feinstein clearly explained on multiple occasions why there was a delay, which was backed up by Ford herself. Further, from the moment the allegations were known to the public, the investigation was adamantly requested by all parties involved except for the Republicans and Kavanaugh.

    Your statement is nothing more than the same complaints that the Reps kept repeating yesterday and today. Complaining about how this went down in no way offers a solution to the problem. Now, sure, this situation is shitty for everyone involved, and we can definitely say that, if Ford had known this would happen, she probably would've agreed to a confidential FBI investigation way back when she demanded that her allegations be kept confidential - even to the FBI. And that would've prevented this. But complaining that that didn't happen is actually grandstanding and wasting time instead of trying to find a way to improve this horrible situation.
    You have to agree that, if Kavanaugh is confirmed as SC judge without an investigation which either clears his name or shows he lied, his tenure there would be fraught with political difficulties, to say the least. Maybe the Dems wanted it that way, but simply claiming that and complaining about it in no way offers a solution. And currently, the only viable solution appears to be to clear his name or show he lied. Simply complaining about the situation and trying to just push him through won't solve anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She could have actually gone to the head of the judiciary committee and asked for the investigation in such a manner that Dr. Ford's identity would have stayed anonymous.
    Again, in the time before her story leaked, she wanted it to remain confidential even to the FBI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And I know people have pointed to the Clarence Thomas investigation as precedent. However, let's remember, he was accused of sexual harassment as a government employee.
    They haven't just pointed to Clarence Thomas. More than a couple senators indicated that the FBI being asked to do a deeper investigation - further to and separate from their regular background check - when new information came to light was in no way a strange occurrence. One even mentioned that the FBI was even brought in to check a decades-old marijuana allegation for one candidate. So your comparison between Clarence Thomas being bad as a gov employee vs. Kavanaugh being bad in his youth doesn't justify not having an investigation now. Further, the issue isn't only about whether he did it anymore, but now also whether he's currently lying about it. He has already been shown to not be entirely truthful about certain things from his past life, both professionally and privately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The FBI was completely warranted and within their jurisdiction to investigate. It should also be remembered that while the FBI said they could find nothing to corroborate Ms. Hill's claims and Thomas was nominated, the cloud from the Hill accusations still resonate.
    I think it's fair to say that the cloud would be even worse had they not done the due diligence investigation, as it definitely appears to be the case now. Again, complaining about the shitty situation does nothing to help improve it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In fact, even today, despite being cleared by an FBI investigation, Democrats still insinuate Thomas was guilty.
    And when they do, isn't it at least better that they can't also back up their insinuations with the fact that an investigation wasn't done? This is just more complaining.

  10. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/gofundme-c...ry?id=58147904
    Dr Ford has several go fund me accounts with over 700k in donations.

    I'm afraid.. that is called motive.
    I understand that that doesn't mean she is lying, but we can't sit back and pretend that there is NO apparent and compelling reason for her to lie.
    To serve man.

  11. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Dr Ford has several go fund me accounts with over 700k in donations.
    I'm afraid.. that is called motive.
    Not really. Prior to coming forward, there would be no way of knowing for sure whether any appeal to charity would work, and to what extent. Considering how chaotically this whole thing has gone down, it stands to reason that such a ploy would be quite risky, with no guarantee that people would want to give her anything, let alone enough to cover her family's expenses and still have enough money left over as profit to justify the permanent damage they've suffered because of less supportive members of the public.
    No, your claim that this is evidence of motive is really reaching. You've taken the public's interest and desire to assist a credible victim - a desire whose scope and therefore resulting monetary impact directly depended on an unforeseeable outcome, and attempted to twist it into what amounts to a brilliant get-rich-quick scheme by a criminal mastermind.
    You're better off trying to argue that she's just crazy.

  12. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  13. #72
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Not really. Prior to coming forward, there would be no way of knowing for sure whether any appeal to charity would work,
    That is true, and not true. In that, we do live in a society that it is very reasonable to believe you would get SOME support.
    I mean, otherwise you wouldn't start a go-fund me account at all.
    So by the evidence the expectation was there. That doesn't mean that is why she did it..
    Let me repeat, that doesn't mean she did it for the money.
    BUT SHE COULD HAVE. Which is a motive, and it is very possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Considering how chaotically this whole thing has gone down, it stands to reason that such a ploy would be quite risky, with no guarantee that people would want to give her anything, let alone enough to cover her family's expenses and still have enough money left over as profit to justify the permanent damage they've suffered because of less supportive members of the public.
    Are you serious.. look no further than Stormy to see the windfall one can score for a politically charged story. Fact is, it happens all the time in politics.
    My only point is money is a motivator.. and there is money in this.. evidenced.. by you know... the money. Don't make it out to be more than what I am saying.

    so.. just saying.. she could have been motivated by money. and there is apparently a good deal of money going her way.
    If someone were going to try to make the case that she did it for money because she was paid by the Dems.. I would think the list of donors would be Exhibit A(iether way).


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, your claim that this is evidence of motive is really reaching.
    I think you are ignoring a basic human motivator.. money. To say that she may have been aiming at a million dollar windfall for simply accusing a person on T.V. Where there is zero risk of her suffering legal action... I think you are just being naive.
    To serve man.

  14. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,092
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Kavanaugh's calendar and the July 1 party.


    "July 1 was a Thursday. Kavanaugh’s defense also relied on his insistence that the gathering could not have happened on a weeknight. “The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the summers,” he said. Kavanaugh later said his summer job in 1982 was mowing lawns. (“I had my own business of sorts.”)

    Speaking of summer jobs, a book written by Judge says that the summer before his senior year of high school, “to raise money for football camp, I spent a few weeks working as a bag boy at the local supermarket.” This supports another statement of Ford’s when she described seeing Judge after the alleged incident at his job at a local Safeway supermarket. Judge writes in his book that, by then, he was “completely hooked” on alcohol and was frequently drunk. “Invariably I would be hungover” while working there, he wrote, which would mean drinking on weeknights."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  16. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    "July 1 was a Thursday. Kavanaugh’s defense also relied on his insistence that the gathering could not have happened on a weeknight. “The event described by Dr. Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believe everyone worked and had jobs in the summers,” he said. Kavanaugh later said his summer job in 1982 was mowing lawns. (“I had my own business of sorts.”)

    Speaking of summer jobs, a book written by Judge says that the summer before his senior year of high school, “to raise money for football camp, I spent a few weeks working as a bag boy at the local supermarket.” This supports another statement of Ford’s when she described seeing Judge after the alleged incident at his job at a local Safeway supermarket. Judge writes in his book that, by then, he was “completely hooked” on alcohol and was frequently drunk. “Invariably I would be hungover” while working there, he wrote, which would mean drinking on weeknights."
    Good find.
    It does indeed support another statement by Ford. .. but then.. so what? Seeing him at a super market, which was his job at the time, and written in a book for public knowledge, hardly support rape charges. I mean, it is great that she remembers stuff from 36 years ago, I can't remember where I was last week, but it is pretty much worthless information.
    To serve man.

  17. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is true, and not true. In that, we do live in a society that it is very reasonable to believe you would get SOME support.
    This does not address the main issue with your theory I pointed out. Again, someone motivated by money who was planning to lie would have no assurance of profit after overcoming the financial hardships incurred in order to justify the permanent, life-changing hardships to their family.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    BUT SHE COULD HAVE. Which is a motive, and it is very possible.
    Again I have to point out the absurdity of what you're suggesting. In the current political climate, someone would have to be insane or incredibly stupid to risk the permanent harm to them and their family just to make a quick buck in order for what you're suggesting to be even possible, let alone probable. Especially considering that two very important factors - both the amount of money donated and the amount of costs incurred by them in the process - are complete unknowns.

    And those aren't the only unknowns which increase the risk if someone truly was lying and doing this for money.
    Another major risk is that the lie would not seem credible enough to convince enough people to give them money. A liar with no connection whatsoever to Kavanaugh (according to his claim), who just wanted to make money, would have to be able to make a sufficiently-credible allegation in order to ensure that enough people would be moved to donate and the donations would outweigh the costs incurred by the liar (an aforementioned unknown) by a large enough margin to make the endeavour worthwhile.
    And yet another risk is that the person they're lying about would be able to readily provide evidence to counter their lie. Again, a liar with no connection whatsoever to Kavanaugh, who just wanted to make money, would have to know enough about the person they're lying about in order to ensure that their mark wasn't able to easily and credibly shoot down their lie the moment they uttered it.

    Based on these factors, the suggestion that it's even possible (let alone "very possible" as you claimed) that she's just lying to make money is reaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Are you serious.. look no further than Stormy to see the windfall one can score for a politically charged story. Fact is, it happens all the time in politics.
    None of this addresses the issue I've pointed out, that the amount gained and potential risk of harm are both unknown and unknowable factors one would have to consider if they were doing it solely for monetary gain. The risk of permanent damage & harm is real, and has real effects - you know Stormy has and is still receiving death threats, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My only point is money is a motivator.. and there is money in this.. evidenced.. by you know... the money. Don't make it out to be more than what I am saying.
    I've already addressed why your one and only point (the fact that there's money being donated and people like money) fails to serve as a reasonable basis for thinking this could even be the case due to the unknowns one would have to risk if money was their motivation. Repeating your point doesn't make it stronger.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    so.. just saying.. she could have been motivated by money.
    Yes, I understand you think she could have, but I've already explained why that's absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    and there is apparently a good deal of money going her way.
    Again, if someone were planning to do this, no amount could possibly have been guaranteed to them at the outset. Whether a good deal comes in the end doesn't change that fact which is the main issue with your claim.
    The fact that no amount is guaranteed, coupled with the risk of unknown financial costs (which diminish the potential gains, just to point that out if it wasn't clear already) as well as the risk of serious harm to one's family, make what you're proposing simply absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If someone were going to try to make the case that she did it for money because she was paid by the Dems.. I would think the list of donors would be Exhibit A(iether way).
    So, what are you saying, that it's possible she is a liar with no connection to Kavanaugh whatsoever who was just waiting on some random chance to get rich quick, and the Dems were just waiting for someone who'd take their money and lie for them, and that they magically found each other?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think you are ignoring a basic human motivator.. money. To say that she may have been aiming at a million dollar windfall for simply accusing a person on T.V. Where there is zero risk of her suffering legal action... I think you are just being naive.
    I've already responded to your claim of her possibly being motivated by money, and explained why it's absurd. Further, on what basis do you claim that she doesn't risk suffering legal action if the is just a liar who's trying to make money? The fact that she's willing to submit to a full FBI investigation clearly refutes this nonsense.
    Last edited by futureboy; September 28th, 2018 at 11:21 PM.

  18. #76
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    This does not address the main issue with your theory I pointed out. Again, someone motivated by money who was planning to lie would have no assurance of profit after overcoming the financial hardships incurred in order to justify the permanent, life-changing hardships to their family.
    I admit that it is a calculation, but I pointed out that it is not an unreasonable calculation given todays culture, and again evidenced by the fact that they opened such accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again I have to point out the absurdity of what you're suggesting. In the current political climate, someone would have to be insane or incredibly stupid to risk the permanent harm to them and their family just to make a quick buck in order for what you're suggesting to be even possible, let alone probable. Especially considering that two very important factors - both the amount of money donated and the amount of costs incurred by them in the process - are complete unknowns.
    People do all sorts of things just for 15min of fame, and no promise of money. So it simply can't be ruled out.
    meaning, it may be unlikely.. and I am with you, but it isn't to the level of absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    And those aren't the only unknowns which increase the risk if someone truly was lying and doing this for money.
    Another major risk is that the lie would not seem credible enough to convince enough people to give them money. A liar with no connection whatsoever to Kavanaugh (according to his claim), who just wanted to make money, would have to be able to make a sufficiently-credible allegation in order to ensure that enough people would be moved to donate and the donations would outweigh the costs incurred by the liar (an aforementioned unknown) by a large enough margin to make the endeavour worthwhile.
    And yet another risk is that the person they're lying about would be able to readily provide evidence to counter their lie. Again, a liar with no connection whatsoever to Kavanaugh, who just wanted to make money, would have to know enough about the person they're lying about in order to ensure that their mark wasn't able to easily and credibly shoot down their lie the moment they uttered it.
    First, you are incorrect that Judge K has claimed no connection to her. He never said "i never met that woman". So your calculations are off.
    Waiting 37 years actually cuts against your "evidence" line. Again, the claim was so vague he could have accounted for a whole lot of time, and still not been clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    None of this addresses the issue I've pointed out, that the amount gained and potential risk of harm are both unknown and unknowable factors one would have to consider if they were doing it solely for monetary gain. The risk of permanent damage & harm is real, and has real effects - you know Stormy has and is still receiving death threats, right?
    Sure, there are unknowns. That is not relevant to establishing a possible motive.
    Money is a motive. That is all I am saying and pointing out that she has now received a lot of possible motive.
    you are basically calling the line of thought "hey I could make a bunch of money if I accuse important political figure X of rape" an absurdity.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    I've already addressed why your one and only point (the fact that there's money being donated and people like money) fails to serve as a reasonable basis for thinking this could even be the case due to the unknowns one would have to risk if money was their motivation. Repeating your point doesn't make it stronger.
    I addressed your response directly by pointing to the cultural climate that we live in. by the fact that she opened go-fund me accounts, which means that she was counting on exactly what you say is absurd. (IE that people would pay to cover her expenses + whatever).
    I mean, your assertion is absurd. That she would be willing to do it for free, but not willing to do it for money?

    Lets just take a (she is telling the truth) approach. She initially didn't want to come forward, probably for all the motivations you talked about. so you don't think someone told her "don't worry, you will be taken care of"? With no nefarious intent at all?
    I mean.. I would if I was in a position of power. Don't worry about your plane ticket, don't worry about your hotel.. don't worry about the lawyer.. we will take care of that for you.

    That doesn't sound absurd. Yet you are treating these as though they are left field absurdities that no one would ever appeal to for profit.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Yes, I understand you think she could have, but I've already explained why that's absurd.
    And your appeals are unreasonable, and don't reflect events that are common in our society. It also ignores some of her expressed calculations and calls them absurd.
    None of what you have said is enough to REMOVE money as a motive. Your really just hoping it isn't true.

    That said, It isn't like I have made the case that she IS motivated by money.
    I'm just pointing out that we can not say, that we can not concieve of a motive for her to lie ..
    Such as "why would she lie". The easiest and most apparent answer is "money".

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I've already responded to your claim of her possibly being motivated by money, and explained why it's absurd. Further, on what basis do you claim that she doesn't risk suffering legal action if the is just a liar who's trying to make money? The fact that she's willing to submit to a full FBI investigation clearly refutes this nonsense.
    The vagueness of her claim. They could never prove in a court of law that she was lying.. The nature of her claim ensured that.

    anyway.. thanks for the exchange.. it's pretty much exhausted.
    To be fair, you have brought up good reasons why we should think she was not motivated by money. However that simply doesn't remove money as a motive.

    Picture..
    There is a married couple, and the wife dies from apparently falling down the stairs. Everything looks legit, but the police find out the husband received 2million dollars upon her death.
    They call him in, and he explains that his wife purchased it, that he has no interest in money because he is a monk and has no material possessions. Which they see is true, he is a monk and has no material possessions.

    does that rule out motive? Nope.. it does not. In court many could and maybe should be convinced by those facts... but if he keeps the money, then money clearly motivates.
    Notice..none of the above would prove he killed his wife!
    And that is only what I have pointed out. A Valid possible motive where some claim they can't think of any reason why she would lie.

    So my "argument" is summed up.
    If you say "why would she lie".
    An answer is :
    "Money"
    With 1million reasons and counting to justify that motive.
    To serve man.

  19. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,092
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Good find.
    It does indeed support another statement by Ford. .. but then.. so what? Seeing him at a super market, which was his job at the time, and written in a book for public knowledge, hardly support rape charges. I mean, it is great that she remembers stuff from 36 years ago, I can't remember where I was last week, but it is pretty much worthless information.
    His own calendar has him drinking on a Thursday night which counters his defense that he was out of town most weekends and it must have been on a weekend. Kavanaugh's classmates at Yale describe him as a heavy drinker...a "sloppy drunk" as one put it. Not so much the altar boy he made himself out to be.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  20. #78
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,202
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, do you/we really know anything about her to determine if she is mentally stable or anything else?
    No, my approach to this is to look at what I know or have seen and make a tentative judgement based on that. I try not to claim anything for sure. I critique and challenge ideas folks put forth, and I put my own forward. What makes this one especially interesting is exactly the fact there is so much unknown. If we had a semen test or something its a slam dunk, not much to talk about but moral implications. But here, we are dealing with human memroy, 30+ years, drinking, and a lot more. The waters are super murky, that makes it perfect for speculation. And we all have to deal with situations like this, where two people have competing claims and you don't have a celar way to know the truth. How we deal with that, is fascinating to me.

    I am not saying it refutes her claim of sexual assault. However, it does call into question her claim she absolutely had only one beer. Again, was she actually as truthful as some people are believing she is?
    My general impression with drinking is that it's good for not remembering things, but doesn't tend to lead to false memories. So it coulld scramble up her facts, but isn't likely to lead her to invent them. Certainly, it was a drinking party, so I'd assume she drank. I definately don't consider Fords memory an inviolate witness to the truth.

    Regarding the flying issue. She claimed she could not attend the hearing on Monday because of her fear of flying claiming she'd need to drive. In fact, she did fly to Washington and actually flies quite often.
    https://constitution.com/fords-fear-...g-confessions/
    Like I said, I know people who are afraid of flying. They often use it as an excuse to avoid things they don't want to to. When asked, she was clear she didn't want to go to Washington. Can you blame her? She came to realie that was not in the cards so she did what she had to. Seems perfectly reasonable. The counter theorry is that she's all part of a plot by the democrats. I'm sure they are happy to see as many delays as possilbe, and they may have encouraged this kind of thing, but that doesn't make her a liar personally which is what I think matters.

    1) She claimed she told her therapist in 2012 about Mr K. However, the therapist notes do not support this.
    That isn't accurate from what I read. She had told the therapist about the attack, not who had done it and the therapist corroborates that.

    2) She claimed there were two people in the room. However, the therapist notes say there were 4. The number of people in the room and at the gathering has changed a few times. Now, we can agree that memory of an event 35 years ago can elicit some amount of misremembering and clarifying. I am just pointing out that this is another instance of something she has claimed, but was refuted.
    She's been adamant about who was in the room so far as I've seen. Judge and Kavenaugh. At the party, she experessed she wasn't exactly sure other than it was a small party and she thinks she remembers at least some of the other guests.

    Now, her friend who she thought was there but doesn't remember going or ever meeting Kavenaugh is a big blow to the reliability of her memory for sure. But it's also a mark agaisnt her lying since... it would be pretty bone headed to claim someone was there who you know wasn't. She didn't seem at all like an idiot (there are some who are of course).

    Then there are the little facts of the matter which call into question things like motive and that raise general suspicion.
    1) She couldn't remember if she gave the WaPo reporter her therapist notes. Just seems kind of an odd thing to not remember when it happened just a week ago.
    That would not be too unusual for me, I have a pretty crappy memory myself for many things. Good for others, its just plain weird sometimes.

    2) She didn't know who paid for the lie detector test.
    Franly, that makes sense to me. Why would she be looking over the receipts of people who were trying to help her out? It seems a strange thing to exect her to know. She contacted her representative about this and they sprang into action, activating the political machine to swoop in and support her. Clearly someone in all that paid for it, but who exactly, not sure how she would know or care to ask. They could just ask the guy, I saw him on a TV clip the other day.

    3) She didn't know if the lie detector test was recorded.
    Again, she likely didn't ask. I imagine it went down like: Democrats: Ford, a lot of folks will challenge what you say, we think it would be good for you to take a polygraph test, are you willing to do that? Ford: Yes OK I think I could do that. Democrats: Great, we will get that set up and let you know. Then she shows up, does the test, and that's that.

    4) She used a lawyer referred to her by Senator Feinstein's office. Is that normal?
    As normal as this whole thing which is to say no, but in the circumstance, yes. Any time you are about to make a claim against the rich and powerful, you damned well want a lawer. And I'm sure the democrats were more than happy to pay for it since her claim does them a great service in their political struggle.

    I list the above, which is not comprehensive, but covers a lot to show that Dr. Ford has a lot of holes in her credibility as a witness.
    Sure. Absolutely. Thogh, she's got other things going for her as well. And Kavenaugh has his own problems to deal with, most notibly his rep for heavy drinking and partying and the yearbook that shows his attitude about sex and partying during that time of his life. No one has anything iron clad going on there.

    I think the impression people got from watching her at the hearing was that she was a credible accuser. However, this may have been because the GOP chose (or at least the person the chose to question her), didn't really drive home the gaps in her story. They kind of backed off and chose not to attack her nor defend Mr. K. So, it is easy to watch the hearing and get the impression that she was a solid witness. In reality, I don't think she was all that solid and in an actual court room, she'd have gotten shred. Probably one reason why charges were never and will never be filed (regardless of the SoL).
    Why is grilling someone needed here? She answered a number of challenging questions. Kavenaugh also faced challenging questions. I thought they were both treated respectfully as witnesses. This was not a trial.

    Finally, when it was all said and done, not a single person has backed her story. Not one.
    That is not true. Many people have backed up her story and believe in her testiomony. No one can directly corroborate it. That is often true for the victims of sexual assaults. Some have directly contridicted it.

    One of her witnesses went so far as to say she had never met Mr. K. Never met him.... Think about that.
    I've probably met a lot of people I don't remember ever meeting. I've had people call be by name and I have no clue who they are. Memory kind of sucks that way. But there are hardly any people I remember meeting that I have in fact never met. That's pretty rare.

    Memory can be totaly false, but... it is far more common that you forget something entirely than you invent events that didn't happen.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #79
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    His own calendar has him drinking on a Thursday night which counters his defense that he was out of town most weekends and it must have been on a weekend. Kavanaugh's classmates at Yale describe him as a heavy drinker...a "sloppy drunk" as one put it. Not so much the altar boy he made himself out to be.
    Is that evidence to you of attempted rape?

    What do you mean counters his defense.. are you going to hold him to remembering where he was 37 years ago.. and if he can't answer with the certainty desire.. then he is guilty!?

    What justice indeed! What wise judgment! You must be Solomon reborn to hold such insight!
    To serve man.

  22. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    To be fair, you have brought up good reasons why we should think she was not motivated by money.
    Great! From your earlier position of "it is very possible", I'll take that as a victory!

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    his wife purchased it ... he is a monk and has no material possessions.
    ...
    but if he keeps the money, then money clearly motivates.
    Your logic simply doesn't follow. If the person is a monk ho has no interest in the money and was not involved in purchasing the life insurance policy, then we can't establish motive from the money. The motive would have to come from other factors, or if they could demonstrate that, between the time of her purchasing and her death, his monkish attitudes had changed or were at least questionable.

    The mere fact that he ended up with the money by itself is simply is not enough to establish motive. You keep pointing to the situation after the fact and extrapolating that to motivation proving that they planned it in advance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So my "argument" is summed up.
    If you say "why would she lie".
    An answer is :
    "Money"
    With 1million reasons and counting to justify that motive.
    The "1 million reasons" is the current after-the-fact situation. Again, the mere fact that people ended up donating such a large sum afterwards is not enough to establish that a motive existed before. In your scenario, at the time of the alleged planning of the lie, there would be no possible way to guarantee that: 1. so much would be donated; 2. the financial costs incurred during the process wouldn't exceed the donated amount; 3. that there wouldn't be unknowns in her mark's testimony which would easily invalidate the lie - all of which would drastically affect the final amount she'd end up with. And with so many unknowns, the real risk of permanent damage to her family makes the idea that someone with so much to lose would gamble like that absurd.

 

 
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 08:56 PM
  2. Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: July 19th, 2012, 06:20 AM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 4th, 2012, 11:31 AM
  4. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM
  5. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 02:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •