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 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 200
  1. #101
    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 CowboyX View Post
    I'm not thinking about conviction.

    He aid he wasn't at any party that resembled what Dr. Ford described, yet he was.

    ---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------



    ---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]

    Nope, Mark and Brett were already ********* when she got there so the party had already been going on. Doesn't mean people weren't coming and going. Maybe her boyfriend was there then left before she got there. I haven't been through it that thoroughly. Maybe we should. Who all was there?

    ---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------


    Or maybe we just go with the simplest answer, the party she described never happened. Again, you are filling in the holes with your own imagination. What can we positively corroborate about her story. It is still all that matters.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. #102
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,677
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I'm not thinking about conviction.

    He aid he wasn't at any party that resembled what Dr. Ford described, yet he was.
    I haven't seen him say this at all. He never denied going to parties.
    So the only thing is "like this", and that seems vague.
    Like where he raped girls? ye, that has never been established.

    I think you are taking a very general thing and applying it specifically in a way that it doesn't fit and isn't consistent with its context.


    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Then get the records from the Safeway...oh, blocked by the White House, nevermind.
    Safeway? I'm sorry, who is that?
    Also, I highly doubt the White house has to destroy 37 year old records, and it certainly isn't on the accused to narrow down the accusation for an accuser.

    You raped me in the late 80's.
    Correction I was only available to rape you in the summer of 82.
    O thanks.. You raped me in the summer of 82.
    Ah.. you got me.. I can't account for any particular day of the summer of 82. I guess that means I raped you.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Are we talking about justice? For who? Can't he sue for defamation?
    Do you believe in railroading someone? How about mob justice? Are you a fan of lynching?
    The problem with those things is that they are unjust attempts at justice.
    So I am talking about the process here. No one knows a darn thing, and yet strangers are at the houses of these people and threatening their lives. (That would be the judge and the accuser).
    Their isn't any fixing that, and their won't be any justice for those who caused it.



    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm not going to read other posts find out what you are talking about so if you want to introduce this in our debate, you will need to fill me in. But I'm not sure that this is relevant.
    This was referencing a central line I have presented throughout the thread.
    Namely, the tendency for people (innocent or not) to incriminate themselves when speaking to authorities is so strong, such a present danger, and so LIKELY. That no legal mind will tell you to talk to those authorities.
    To serve man.

  3. #103
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This was referencing a central line I have presented throughout the thread.
    Namely, the tendency for people (innocent or not) to incriminate themselves when speaking to authorities is so strong, such a present danger, and so LIKELY. That no legal mind will tell you to talk to those authorities.
    When they are, or might be, the subject of a criminal investigation, they should not talk to the police (without a lawyer present).

    And it also does not really apply the Kavanaugh hearing.

    Again, it's more or less a job interview, not a criminal investigation. I doubt any credible expert would advise one to avoid speaking to the relevant authority in a job interview. And if things don't go Kavanaugh's way, then he doesn't get the job but gets to keep the job he currently has, which is quite different than the consequence that someone might face when talking to the police when they are a suspect in a crime (even if they have committed no crime).
    Last edited by mican333; October 3rd, 2018 at 09:17 AM.

  4. #104
    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 mican333 View Post
    When they are, or might be, the subject of a criminal investigation, that is certainly good advice.

    And it also does not really apply the Kavanaugh hearing.

    Again, it's more or less a job interview, not a criminal investigation. I doubt any credible expert would advise one to avoid speaking to the relevant authority in a job interview. And if things don't go Kavanaugh's way, then he doesn't get the job which is quite different than the consequence that someone might face when talking to the police when they are a suspect in a crime (even if they have committed no crime).
    This argument is flawed. When K is speaking to the Senate, he is under oath. Whatever he tells the FBI, he is under oath. Lying under oath is a crime. The issue isn't what we are calling the inquisition. The issue is that whatever he says opens himself up to perjury. Whether you want to call it a job interview, background check, or criminal investigation, does not matter one bit. He may answer to the best of his ability, but as we have already established, things that happened 35 years ago aren't always crystal clear in the mind. So, if he says one thing and the evidence shows something else, did he lie? This is a judgement call oftentimes. It just seems a little disingenuous to state he is merely interviewing for a job and come to the conclusion there is no risk in talking to the FBI. Just ask Paul Manafort. When he was interviewed by the FBI, the interviewing agent believed that while he didn't always have the facts correct, Manafort was being truthful. Then, later, Mueller, looked at the transcripts from the interview and charged Manafort with lying to the FBI. I am not making any sort of truth claim here regarding whether Manafort lied or did not lie. I am just offering this as evidence that truthfulness can be gauged subjectively. So, the more K is questioned about things that happened 35 years ago, the more likely his statements will reflect vagueness in what he remembers. Who would rightly open themselves up to that? Forget that this whole thing is silly season for a moment. This guy has undergone no less than seven FBI background checks, including securing the highest level security clearance in the government. Is there any reason to believe background check number eight will yield anything different? Maybe if his accuser(s) had credible accusations, it would make sense. As it stands, no credible accusations have been made against him. All we have is accusers that have made completely uncorroborated statements about things which supposedly occurred 30-40 years ago. The more we hear from and about the accusers, the less credible their statements have become. Again, I've posed this earlier, has either accuser named a date, time, and place? Has either accuser been able to provide a single corroborating witness? Has any accuser been on record near the time of the alleged incident making the same or similar accusation? And you want K to open himself up to perjury for what? No job interview asks about someone's high school year book written 35 years ago. No job interview asks about incredible allegations made while in high school. This is just ridiculous. It is purely a political game and, in my opinion, goes beyond politics. There is a group of people willing to ruin a person's reputation, harm a person's livelihood and place undue strain and stress on a person's family (wife and children) in order to score political points. I personally find the whole the thing seedy and it is a mockery of what a confirmation hearing is supposed to achieve. At the end of the day K will be confirmed. However, the path to nomination for any candidate going forward will forevermore be an ugly and terrible thing, regardless of which party is doing the nominating.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  5. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Belthazor liked this post
  6. #105
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Credible is not the same thing as corroborated. Nor does one have to have corroborating evidence to be credible.

    The FBIs 302s will not be made public

    Dozens of witnesses have said they want to speak to the FBI, including Ford who wants to speak to them.

    Kavanaugh's friend and classmate from Yale is on the FBI investigation. It's rigged! Tainted! (jk)
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #106
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,677
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I am surprised by how many "demands" the accuser is making on the process. It just seems weird.
    She had demands about travel arrangements, about order of testimony.
    Now after having her chance to speak to the senate, she is demanding to speak to the FBI or else they won't turn over evidence the senate has asked for.

    I know this is the lawyers doing, but it just seems really strange. It smells more like political maneuvering than anything legitimate.
    To serve man.

  8. #107
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This argument is flawed. When K is speaking to the Senate, he is under oath. Whatever he tells the FBI, he is under oath. Lying under oath is a crime. The issue isn't what we are calling the inquisition. The issue is that whatever he says opens himself up to perjury. Whether you want to call it a job interview, background check, or criminal investigation, does not matter one bit. He may answer to the best of his ability, but as we have already established, things that happened 35 years ago aren't always crystal clear in the mind. So, if he says one thing and the evidence shows something else, did he lie? This is a judgement call oftentimes.
    You seem to be saying that even if he tells the truth, he might get convicted of perjury? In the "theoretically, anything is possible" world, I guess that's true. But in reality, as long as he tells the truth, the odds of a perjury conviction is pretty much nil.

    And I'm sure his lawyer did not tell him to not answer any questions without a lawyer present, which is the advice that lawyers give when talking to police.

    So despite some similarities, this is much different than being questioned by police. It's pretty much a job interview and the LIKELY worst case scenario is K does not get the job. The notion that he's innocent of the assault but at real risk of arrest is really far-fetched.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It just seems a little disingenuous to state he is merely interviewing for a job and come to the conclusion there is no risk in talking to the FBI. Just ask Paul Manafort. When he was interviewed by the FBI, the interviewing agent believed that while he didn't always have the facts correct, Manafort was being truthful. Then, later, Mueller, looked at the transcripts from the interview and charged Manafort with lying to the FBI. I am not making any sort of truth claim here regarding whether Manafort lied or did not lie. I am just offering this as evidence that truthfulness can be gauged subjectively.
    Was Manafort convicted of lying to the FBI when he was in fact telling the truth?

    If so, please support.
    If not, then this is not relevant.

    And one OBVIOUS difference is that Manafort was under criminal investigation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, the more K is questioned about things that happened 35 years ago, the more likely his statements will reflect vagueness in what he remembers. Who would rightly open themselves up to that? Forget that this whole thing is silly season for a moment. This guy has undergone no less than seven FBI background checks, including securing the highest level security clearance in the government. Is there any reason to believe background check number eight will yield anything different?
    It's only reasonable to think that, it's plainly obvious that it will. They will be talking to people they never talked to before so yeah, they are going to find something different.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Maybe if his accuser(s) had credible accusations, it would make sense. As it stands, no credible accusations have been made against him. All we have is accusers that have made completely uncorroborated statements about things which supposedly occurred 30-40 years ago. The more we hear from and about the accusers, the less credible their statements have become.
    I disagree. I think Ford is entirely credible and if you think she's not, then you are likely just inventing your own criteria for what constitutes "credible".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, I've posed this earlier, has either accuser named a date, time, and place? Has either accuser been able to provide a single corroborating witness? Has any accuser been on record near the time of the alleged incident making the same or similar accusation?
    Is any of this necessary for a claim to be considered credible? No.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And you want K to open himself up to perjury for what? No job interview asks about someone's high school year book written 35 years ago. No job interview asks about incredible allegations made while in high school.
    But then the allegations are credible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It is purely a political game and, in my opinion, goes beyond politics. There is a group of people willing to ruin a person's reputation, harm a person's livelihood and place undue strain and stress on a person's family (wife and children) in order to score political points.
    Maybe there are. But then there are also people who don't want someone who sexually assaulted a classmate on the SCOTUS. I'm one of those people. So I'm against the nomination regardless of what political games others might play regarding the accusation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I personally find the whole the thing seedy and it is a mockery of what a confirmation hearing is supposed to achieve. At the end of the day K will be confirmed. However, the path to nomination for any candidate going forward will forevermore be an ugly and terrible thing, regardless of which party is doing the nominating.
    Well, I think as long as the next nominee hasn't sexually assaulted anyone, we aren't going to get a replay of this.

    And I think what's ugly is the refusal to withdraw this nominee despite all of the very good reasons to do so which now go beyond the assault.

  9. #108
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,677
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Mican, no it is if he tells what he thinks is the truth, but is in fact wrong. He is at risk of pergury. That is why the dems are moving on those charges currently on any statement he made that turns out to be false.
    Even if he isn't convicted of purgery, they will justify a no vote based on their beliefs that he did.. and thus he is harmed.
    It really isn't controversial and the fact that your confidence is shared by no lawyer ever.. pretty much is all the evidence that can possibly exist that your expectation is mistaken.
    To serve man.

  10. #109
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mican, no it is if he tells what he thinks is the truth, but is in fact wrong. He is at risk of pergury.
    In "anything is possible" land, yes. In reality, I think the risk of it happening is insignificant.

    Did his lawyers tell him to not speak to the Senate in the same way that lawyers tell people to not talk to the police? Obviously not. So the difference is quite significant.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is why the dems are moving on those charges currently on any statement he made that turns out to be false.
    I have yet to hear of anyone suggest that he be criminally convicted of perjury.

    And also the situation of "perjury for telling the truth" only applies if one is telling the truth. It looks to me like the "lies" he told were actually lies. And again, even if he's telling the truth and people think he's lying, he is not facing criminal prosecution for it. The worst case scenario is that he doens't get the job, which likewise is the worst case scenario for one at a job interview.

    If you are going to argue that he REALISTICALLY faces criminal prosecution even if he tells the truth (so an "anything is possible" level of support does not suffice), please support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Even if he isn't convicted of purgery, they will justify a no vote based on their beliefs that he did.. and thus he is harmed.
    I agree that it would be unfortunate if his nomination was scuttled due to false allegations. But I think it would be even more unfortunate if got the seat even though the allegations are true because the consequences could be very bad for the entire nation for decades to come.

    By far, the most important concern is getting the best people we can on the SCOTUS.

    And I think the preponderance of evidence (which IS the appropriate basis for determining if he should get the job or not) points to him committing the assault and lying about it today. So based on that, he should not get the seat.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It really isn't controversial and the fact that your confidence is shared by no lawyer ever.. pretty much is all the evidence that can possibly exist that your expectation is mistaken.
    What confidence of mine are you referring to?

    And I will point out that apparently no lawyer has told K to not testify in front of the Senate due to the possibility that he could get convicted of perjury even if he tells the truth nor have I heard a lawyer voice that concern anywhere. So if we are going to appeal to what the lawyers are saying, your argument falls flat.

  11. #110
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    And I think the preponderance of evidence (which IS the appropriate basis for determining if he should get the job or not) points to him committing the assault and lying about it today. So based on that, he should not get the seat.
    Add to that the unreleased mountain of documents, the Trump-Kennedy connection (which includes his former clerk, Kavanaugh), and Kavanaugh's lying about the stolen democrat documents...or maybe it's been too many years since that happened.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #111
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,677
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    As she has no evidence to present, your appeal to the perponderance of evidence is false and a mischaracteried ion of the facts.
    The "evidence" is squarly on his side because he is the only one that has an outside witness saying the events didn't occurre. She has zero coberating evidence of the crime. All you can say is you believe her over the other two men, but it isn't because of evidence.

    Further when you speak of perponderance if evidence, does that include the sworn testimony that she did not get a second door because of her fears, but because of it's use as a rental? The sworn testimony that she has exhibeted no actual fear of flying?

    I mean, it is consistent with my argument to say that none of that matters. But it is inconsistent with your argument to say that the perponderance of evidence is that she is telling the truth, when she has lied about her motivations relevant to her statments.

    That is a yes or no question. I don't care which way you fall on it.. just want to know if you are aware and have a current understanding of the "evidence"
    To serve man.

  13. #112
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Regardless of Kavanaugh's innocence, his partisan response and temperament are more than sufficient to disqualify him from the position. From Kavanaugh's opening statement last Thursday:

    This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

    There are a number of unfounded accusations contained here, but it isn't the accusations that are the problem, but rather the partisan nature of the response. Kavanaugh said the following in his opening statement to the SJC:

    A good judge must be an umpire a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.

    As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure.

    The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The Justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.

    How can the American people expect Kavanaugh to rule on cases in a non-partisan manner--by his own standard--with such a raw display of brazen partisan rhetoric?

  14. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  15. #113
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As she has no evidence to present, your appeal to the perponderance of evidence is false and a mischaracteried ion of the facts.
    The "evidence" is squarly on his side because he is the only one that has an outside witness saying the events didn't occurre. She has zero coberating evidence of the crime. All you can say is you believe her over the other two men, but it isn't because of evidence.
    It most certainly is because of evidence. The evidence that she is telling the truth is very, very strong.

    The primary piece is that she told her therapist about it six years ago. The notion that she lied to her therapist about the assault is extremely far-fetched (you don't pay a therapist so you can lie about stuff to them). Therefore it is a near certainty that she told her therapist the truth and therefore is being truthful now. Any scenario that has her lying to the Senate would approach tin-foil hat conspiracy level. If you disagree, then please give me a REALISTIC scenario of her coming to lie to the Senate.

    On the other hand, Kavanaugh has apparently lied to the Senate. There are numerous witnesses, including a roommate, who have said that he lied about how much drinking he did and what the terms in the yearbook meant, like Boof and Devil's Triangle. So he apparently lied to avoid looking bad regarding some of his less honorable behavior as a young man and such a person would certainly lie about a very bad incident that he was involved in. He has a clear motivation to lie. Any alleged motivation of her to lie falls into conspiracy theory territory (like it's a long-term Soros-funded scheme put in action years prior to K's nomination).


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further when you speak of perponderance if evidence, does that include the sworn testimony that she did not get a second door because of her fears, but because of it's use as a rental? The sworn testimony that she has exhibeted no actual fear of flying?

    I mean, it is consistent with my argument to say that none of that matters. But it is inconsistent with your argument to say that the perponderance of evidence is that she is telling the truth, when she has lied about her motivations relevant to her statments.

    That is a yes or no question. I don't care which way you fall on it.. just want to know if you are aware and have a current understanding of the "evidence"
    I'm not sure what you are referring to but I will say that having a fear of flying does not mean that one never flies but just that they don't like flying. I don't even know what "door" lie is suppose to have occurred. But I hardly see how either of these "lies", even if they are lies shows that she lied to her therapist.

    --------------------

    And again, if you want to split the difference and say that it's 50/50 that he is not telling the truth or she is not telling the truth, then we have an even chance of putting someone who committed sexual assault as a teenager and then lied about it as an adult on the Supreme Court and that's unacceptable odds, just like it's unacceptable to hire a babysitter who may or may not have molested children in the past.
    Last edited by mican333; October 4th, 2018 at 12:04 PM.

  16. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  17. #114
    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 CowboyX View Post
    Nope, Mark and Brett were already ********* when she got there so the party had already been going on. Doesn't mean people weren't coming and going. Maybe her boyfriend was there then left before she got there. I haven't been through it that thoroughly. Maybe we should. Who all was there?
    Got where? She cannot say. There are all sorts of maybes we can fill in. Maybe she slept walked to a random house, almost got raped by a guy wearing a K mask, and then was magically transported back to her home. I mean, if we are going to use our imaginations to fill in her story, let's at least be creative. What we do know is that NONE of the people she has claimed were present have any memory of the event. One supposed witness has claimed she had never met K. That is all we KNOW about the people in attendance at the alleged event. The rest is just filling in the blanks to meet whatever end result is preferred. So, you can "Nope" all you want. You don't know. If you are asking me who all was there, I'd say absolutely no one. No one was there because we are talking about a fictitious event. But, you go look into that. Maybe you can find evidence of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree or you can produce a real witch burned at the Salem trials. I mean since you're digging for myths and figments of people's imaginations and all.

    ---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Regardless of Kavanaugh's innocence, his partisan response and temperament are more than sufficient to disqualify him from the position. From Kavanaugh's opening statement last Thursday:
    This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

    There are a number of unfounded accusations contained here, but it isn't the accusations that are the problem, but rather the partisan nature of the response. Kavanaugh said the following in his opening statement to the SJC:
    A good judge must be an umpire a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.
    As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure.
    The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The Justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.

    How can the American people expect Kavanaugh to rule on cases in a non-partisan manner--by his own standard--with such a raw display of brazen partisan rhetoric?
    From Ruth Bader Ginburg:
    https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/polit...ker/index.html
    "I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president,"

    Guess we better start the impeachment hearings for RBG I guess, huh?

    ---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You seem to be saying that even if he tells the truth, he might get convicted of perjury? In the "theoretically, anything is possible" world, I guess that's true. But in reality, as long as he tells the truth, the odds of a perjury conviction is pretty much nil.
    Yup. I gave an example which contradicts your belief. But, if you say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I'm sure his lawyer did not tell him to not answer any questions without a lawyer present, which is the advice that lawyers give when talking to police.
    That's great. And if he alters his story slightly over the course of months or years, how does having his lawyer present help him?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So despite some similarities, this is much different than being questioned by police. It's pretty much a job interview and the LIKELY worst case scenario is K does not get the job. The notion that he's innocent of the assault but at real risk of arrest is really far-fetched.
    The likely worst case scenario is that he will not get the scotus job, lose his current job, and lose other employment opportunities. And there is still, albeit not likely, but the possibility, that he could end up in jail for perjury.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Was Manafort convicted of lying to the FBI when he was in fact telling the truth?
    I explained the scenario. He was interviewed by the FBI. The interviewing agents said he had gotten some facts wrong, but they believed he was being honest. Years later, Mueller looked at the transcripts from the interview and determined he was lying. This story goes to the heart of the point I am making. Determining that someone has lied is often subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If so, please support.
    If not, then this is not relevant.
    I was very clear. I am not making a truth claim as to whether Manafort lied. I do not know. The point is that two different sets of investigators looked at the same transcripts and came to opposite conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And one OBVIOUS difference is that Manafort was under criminal investigation.
    Irrelevant difference. In both cases the individuals were being questioned under oath.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's only reasonable to think that, it's plainly obvious that it will. They will be talking to people they never talked to before so yeah, they are going to find something different.
    First, let me make a correction. He has just undergone his seventh background investigation. I mistakenly said eighth. And, as predicted, nothing new uncovered. They talked to different people and found nothing new. Nothing that collaborates anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I disagree. I think Ford is entirely credible and if you think she's not, then you are likely just inventing your own criteria for what constitutes "credible".
    First, I am not placing credibility (or lack thereof) on the person. I am listening to and analyzing her claim. Second, Credible = Believable. When she first made the allegation, her story was credible. As she was questioned and as more details came out, her story has decreased in credibility. That is the foundation of an adversarial system in attempting to achieve justice. We don't just determine credibility based on which person sounds better or based on which person's story we want to believe. We hear the facts. We allow the accuser to be cross-examined. We determine whether her story stands up against the best defense the accused can offer. In this case, while I do not think the defense has been particularly adversarial, it has done enough to poke enough holes into her story that it no longer seems very credible. When she first came forward, we heard of a house party with a specific set of guests and a specific set of actions. On cross examination and through discovery not a single one of her witnesses could corroborate her story. One witness claims to have never met K. She has changed the date on several occasions. She cannot explain how she got to the party or how she got home. She claims this event dictated her life and yet she never discussed it until 2012, thirty years after the alleged incident. And we can go on and on, but I think you get the point. Her defense to support her claims is equally shaky. She cannot be expected to completely remember because of the traumatic experience. Yet, she "remembers" she only had a single beer. In order for her story to be credible, you pretty much have to suspend belief, which I guess is the definition of incredible.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Is any of this necessary for a claim to be considered credible? No.
    Has she provided anything necessary for her claim to be considered credible? No.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then the allegations are credible.
    Were. They were credible. His high school yearbook won't change that. No really, Senators asking a grown man what was meant by boof and Devil's Triangle back when he was 17.... I mean seriously? This is where we are at. Journalists. Real journalists digging into the background of the word, boof.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe there are. But then there are also people who don't want someone who sexually assaulted a classmate on the SCOTUS. I'm one of those people. So I'm against the nomination regardless of what political games others might play regarding the accusation.
    Nobody wants someone who committed sexual assault on the SCOTUS. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. In fact, offer support that a single Senator is ok with sexual assault. However, K isn't guilty of committing sexual assault and, at this point, there isn't a credible claim which says otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I think as long as the next nominee hasn't sexually assaulted anyone, we aren't going to get a replay of this.

    And I think what's ugly is the refusal to withdraw this nominee despite all of the very good reasons to do so which now go beyond the assault.
    So, in your view, K is guilty. Welcome to the new America. Kinda like the old America, but without due process and stuff.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  18. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  19. #115
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,677
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Repeating a claim is not more evidence of the claim being true. I can think of a lot of reasons s why a person. Would tell a therapist things that are not ultimately true. One is you believe them.. but a therapists job is to get people to understand that they are not the oy one with a pic and that they may be wrong. Point is, people go to therapists because they lie to themseves, their spouses etc. That is generally why they need a therapist. So your claim doesn't really have a lot of force to it.
    Second.. repeating a claim doesn't substantiates it. It doesn't prove it it isn't additional evidence for it. So even if she reported it to the police the next day, if all we have is what we have now. There is no evidence to support her accusation.
    Third... Repeating a claim does not substantiate it.
    Fourth repeating a claim does not substantiate it.
    /Note/ as you have accepeted repition as valid support I offered it here for you. As you can see, my point is 4xs as truthful now. Further it includes at least 3 lines of ironic arguments against your point.

    Now that I have offered 4 rebuttals you should simply conciede the obvious fact, that she has presented no evidence .. not a lick . Not an iota, not a smidgen. Of evidence to support her claim.
    So claims that the "evidence" leads to a conclusion is pure fantasy.

    Emotion has filled the gap, as people want to make a judge on if this person is "the kind of person" who would do this or that. Which is a pretty ridiculous standard, and makes "perponderance of the evidence" look down right rigirouse.

    ---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

    Repeating a claim is not more evidence of the claim being true. I can think of a lot of reasons s why a person. Would tell a therapist things that are not ultimately true. One is you believe them.. but a therapists job is to get people to understand that they are not the oy one with a pic and that they may be wrong. Point is, people go to therapists because they lie to themseves, their spouses etc. That is generally why they need a therapist. So your claim doesn't really have a lot of force to it.
    Second.. repeating a claim doesn't substantiates it. It doesn't prove it it isn't additional evidence for it. So even if she reported it to the police the next day, if all we have is what we have now. There is no evidence to support her accusation.
    Third... Repeating a claim does not substantiate it.
    Fourth repeating a claim does not substantiate it.
    /Note/ as you have accepeted repition as valid support I offered it here for you. As you can see, my point is 4xs as truthful now. Further it includes at least 3 lines of ironic arguments against your point.

    Now that I have offered 4 rebuttals you should simply conciede the obvious fact, that she has presented no evidence .. not a lick . Not an iota, not a smidgen. Of evidence to support her claim.
    So claims that the "evidence" leads to a conclusion is pure fantasy.

    Emotion has filled the gap, as people want to make a judge on if this person is "the kind of person" who would do this or that. Which is a pretty ridiculous standard, and makes "perponderance of the evidence" look down right rigirouse.
    To serve man.

  20. #116
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,060
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Repeating a claim is not more evidence of the claim being true. I can think of a lot of reasons s why a person. Would tell a therapist things that are not ultimately true. One is you believe them.. but a therapists job is to get people to understand that they are not the oy one with a pic and that they may be wrong. Point is, people go to therapists because they lie to themseves, their spouses etc. That is generally why they need a therapist.
    No it's not and if you are going to maintain that it is, you will need to support it with some kind of external source. I have friends that went to therapy and I have therapists in my extended family and from all indication, what you said is ridiculous. No, a therapist's primary job is not to get liars to realize that they are lying.

    A vast majority of the time, when someone goes to a therapist to discuss a traumatic event in their past, it's an event that actually happened.

    And besides that, the therapist's notes have been seen and if it were a case where Ford was dealing with an imaginary experience (which again, is extremely unlikely), the notes would have reflected that.

    So the visit to the therapist and what was described there is very strong evidence that Ford is not lying about the assault.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second.. repeating a claim doesn't substantiates it. It doesn't prove it it isn't additional evidence for it. So even if she reported it to the police the next day, if all we have is what we have now. There is no evidence to support her accusation.
    Third... Repeating a claim does not substantiate it.
    Fourth repeating a claim does not substantiate it.
    But claiming that someone happened when you have absolutely no incentive to lie and a lot of incentive to tell the truth is solid evidence that the claim is truthful.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    /Note/ as you have accepeted repition as valid support I offered it here for you. As you can see, my point is 4xs as truthful now. Further it includes at least 3 lines of ironic arguments against your point.
    My acceptance of the claim is not based on its repetition.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Now that I have offered 4 rebuttals you should simply conciede the obvious fact, that she has presented no evidence .. not a lick . Not an iota, not a smidgen. Of evidence to support her claim.
    So claims that the "evidence" leads to a conclusion is pure fantasy.
    I'm not referring to whether she has evidence to support her claim.

    It's MY argument that there is solid evidence that her claim is truthful for reasons stated above.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Emotion has filled the gap, as people want to make a judge on if this person is "the kind of person" who would do this or that. Which is a pretty ridiculous standard, and makes "perponderance of the evidence" look down right rigirouse.
    I can't speak for others but I'm not approaching this from an emotional place and when it comes to judging two conflicting accounts and deciding which is more truthful, I can't think of a better alternative than the preponderance of evidence. If you have conflicting claims and are trying to decide which is more likely to be true, what would you suggest than using available evidence? Flip a coin?

    ---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yup. I gave an example which contradicts your belief. But, if you say so.
    But it's not a real-world example of someone in the kind of situation that K is in being convicted of perjury even though he told the truth.

    If you want me to concede that you've provided a hypothetical scenario that might possibly occur, I concede that (I don't know for a fact that it could but I'm not going to argue the point). But that does not mean that it's something that is likely to happen. Again, the reason lawyers tell people to not talk to the police is that there is a decent chance that it will get them in trouble. Kavanaugh has received no such warning because the situation that he is in is quite different.

    A hypothetical scenario where he MIGHT get in trouble does not change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That's great. And if he alters his story slightly over the course of months or years, how does having his lawyer present help him?
    Since there's no convincing argument that he would actually suffer any criminal sanctions if that were to happen, he probably wouldn't need a lawyer.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The likely worst case scenario is that he will not get the scotus job, lose his current job, and lose other employment opportunities. And there is still, albeit not likely, but the possibility, that he could end up in jail for perjury.
    As I said, I'm not going to address notions from "anything can happen" land. Let's stick with realistic scenarios. And the notion that if he tells the truth of not committing a crime, he could lose his current job is unlikely.

    I mean the cold harsh reality is that there are credible accusations of perjury made against him right now. His college roommate has directly accused him of lying in his Senate hearing and as I write this, the most likely outcome is that he's going to get the seat. So whether he told the truth or lied to the Senate, he's probably going to get confirmed. So that is the REAL consequences of telling the truth to the Senate (assuming he is).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I explained the scenario. He was interviewed by the FBI. The interviewing agents said he had gotten some facts wrong, but they believed he was being honest. Years later, Mueller looked at the transcripts from the interview and determined he was lying. This story goes to the heart of the point I am making. Determining that someone has lied is often subjective.
    Unless:
    1. Manafort was indeed telling the truth
    2. Manafort has been legal punished for lying.

    This is not a relevant case outside of "anything can happen" land.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, let me make a correction. He has just undergone his seventh background investigation. I mistakenly said eighth. And, as predicted, nothing new uncovered. They talked to different people and found nothing new. Nothing that collaborates anything.
    And it's been credibly claimed that the investigation was designed to not find anything new. Again, his college roommate directly accused him of lying. If he had been interviewed, then something new would have been presented.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, I am not placing credibility (or lack thereof) on the person. I am listening to and analyzing her claim. Second, Credible = Believable. When she first made the allegation, her story was credible. As she was questioned and as more details came out, her story has decreased in credibility. That is the foundation of an adversarial system in attempting to achieve justice. We don't just determine credibility based on which person sounds better or based on which person's story we want to believe. We hear the facts. We allow the accuser to be cross-examined. We determine whether her story stands up against the best defense the accused can offer. In this case, while I do not think the defense has been particularly adversarial, it has done enough to poke enough holes into her story that it no longer seems very credible. When she first came forward, we heard of a house party with a specific set of guests and a specific set of actions. On cross examination and through discovery not a single one of her witnesses could corroborate her story.
    That only decreases her credibility if it would be expected that witnesses would corroborate her story if it were true. Since that would not be expected, this lack does not decrease her credibility.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She has changed the date on several occasions.
    As far as I know she's been consistently unsure of the date, which is not unexpected either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She cannot explain how she got to the party or how she got home.
    Also not unexpected from an event that occurred decades ago. Do you remember how you got home from every party you went to when you were younger? I don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    She claims this event dictated her life and yet she never discussed it until 2012, thirty years after the alleged incident.
    Also not unusual. It's very common for sexual assault victims to not discuss the event until much later or not at all. I'm not going to get into detail, but someone in my life just revealed such an event that occurred longer ago than that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And we can go on and on, but I think you get the point.
    Yeah. You seem to think that things that would be quite common for a victim of sexual assault decades ago to do or say somehow decreases her credibility. And you are very incorrect about that.

    Right now, I could tell you completely true story about an event at a party from my college days, which also were about thirty years ago, and would, not surprisingly at all, be fuzzy on a lot of details expect the most memorable parts of the experience. I could tell you what happened at the party and some of the people there, but I could not nail down the date, the location of the house, how I got home afterwards and I would be telling you about it decades after it happened and likewise there would be plenty of people there who would not remember that I was there.

    So if Ford is as fuzzy as the details of her experience as I am in mine, I should think her claim that it happened is not credible? Not by any logic that I can think of.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Her defense to support her claims is equally shaky. She cannot be expected to completely remember because of the traumatic experience. Yet, she "remembers" she only had a single beer. In order for her story to be credible, you pretty much have to suspend belief, which I guess is the definition of incredible.
    Her story is not suppose to be credible because she remembered that she had one beer? I have to pretty much suspend logic to accept that as a valid point.

    And again, I find her story credible because she told it in a situation where she would have absolutely no incentive to lie and a lot of incentive to tell the truth. It's when she told her therapist about it. One does not pay a therapist so they can lie to her.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Were. They were credible. His high school yearbook won't change that. No really, Senators asking a grown man what was meant by boof and Devil's Triangle back when he was 17.... I mean seriously? This is where we are at. Journalists. Real journalists digging into the background of the word, boof.
    Well, appeal to ridicule aside, this is relevant to the situation.

    What he wrote in his yearbook tended to reveal who was very much into drinking and sex and considering that the accusation was about those two things specifically (sexual assault while drunk), it's quite relevant to bring up at the hearing. And since he apparently lied about what "boof" meant, journalists SHOULD look into it assuming that whether K lied to the Senate is relevant (which it is).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Nobody wants someone who committed sexual assault on the SCOTUS. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. In fact, offer support that a single Senator is ok with sexual assault. However, K isn't guilty of committing sexual assault and, at this point, there isn't a credible claim which says otherwise.
    Begging the question. You have not made the case that Ford is not credible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, in your view, K is guilty. Welcome to the new America. Kinda like the old America, but without due process and stuff.
    Well, I'll chalk that up to hyperbolic nonsense and credit you with knowing that me thinking that he's guilty in no way deprives him of due process.

  21. #117
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Got where? She cannot say.
    Yes she can and she did in great detail. Ramirez did also, and also gave the names of 20 witnesses who the FBI would not talk to.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #118
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    From Ruth Bader Ginburg:
    https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/polit...ker/index.html
    "I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president,"

    Guess we better start the impeachment hearings for RBG I guess, huh?
    Forgive me for perhaps being a bit obtuse, but what is your point?

  23. #119
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,677
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jud...t-on-kavanaugh

    So the FBI report is out, and everyone says there is no corroborating evidence found.
    A note about he FBI and their investigation, they don't have subpoena power. So they can only polity ask people to speak to them and if they refuse, then that is that. The Senate could subpoena whoever they wanted.

    Another thing, as much as some have sighted Ms Fords 2012 Therapy notes.. apparently, no one has actually seen them.
    This is actually astonishing.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Ford has extensively cited her 2012 therapy notes as a kind of corroboration for her claims but has not provided them -- even in part -- to investigators. (The Washington Post said Ford had shared a "portion" of her notes with their reporters, but under oath on Thursday, Ford said she could not recall whether she had actually done so, or merely described the notes).
    That means, that the senate is supposed to TAKE HER WORD for it. Of course the strength of this evidence is flimsy itself, because it doesn't actually substantiate the claim as true, only that she has made it in the past, but we literally don't even have that.

    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-...ent-1538715152
    Isn't that witness tampering?
    To serve man.

  24. #120
    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 CowboyX View Post
    Yes she can and she did in great detail. Ramirez did also, and also gave the names of 20 witnesses who the FBI would not talk to.
    That's wonderful. So, which house did Ford describe? Address?

    ---------- Post added at 07:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Forgive me for perhaps being a bit obtuse, but what is your point?
    Didn't you claim K's partisan statements disqualified him from being on the court?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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
  •