Is Kavanaugh toast?
Over something that happened in high school?
0
-
He's likely toast..Republicans are cowards, several motivated like John McCain to do anything to f#$% Trump..Jeff Flake and Bob Corker have already bailed. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jim_lemay
Polygraph test results are not admissible in court.
It is not a criminal prosecution.
I do believe you missed the point.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jim_lemay
Polygraph test results are not admissible in court.
It is not a criminal prosecution.
Correct.
It is a character assassination.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
Over something that happened in high school?
No, he will be toast for his public denials should the allegations prove to be true.
Evidence might include providing the details to a health care provider during therapy 6 years ago.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022344128649
"Results indicated that 26% of participants ?recovered? a complete memory for the false experience and another 30% recalled aspects of the false experience. Real, implanted, and fabricated memories differed on several dimensions (e.g., confidence, vividness, details, repeated details, coherence, stress). These findings have important implications for the debate over recovered and false memories."
Not a huge fan of trusting 'health care providers' when it comes to memories dating back a few decades.
If it happened, you are correct the Kavanaugh's denials should keep him off the court. Kavanaugh obviously knows this, and if there were any truth to the accusation, is smart enough to address it honestly.
Absent some additional corroboration, it is difficult for me to jump on the bandwagon of destroying a man's career because some Bernie Sanders sycophant may have made the decision that he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Perhaps you should read the article for applicability.
The woman is not a child, nor do we have any information that she was an experimental subject being coached by her parents in a fabricated narrative, prior to her discussion with a health care provider some six years ago.
Perhaps Kavanaugh is the subject of false or impaired memory.
Perhaps a polygraph would be to his benefit.
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
Is she credible? Nothing you have posted would suggest that she is, or that you don't have mental illness, or that you have ever actually read anything.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jim_lemay
Polygraph test results are not admissible in court.
It is not a criminal prosecution.
Correct.
It is a character assassination.
Polygraphs are an excellent interrogation tool, not a tool for determining truth. The operators are quite subjective in their analysis, and the very phrasing of the questions are intended to illicit reaction or response. I know people that have "passed" polygraphs that were not truthful on specific questions, so they have very little value as far as credibility in my eyes. Ford supposedly "passed" a polygraph, well someone being inconclusive is a pass. The entire thing is intended to undermine him. There is no reason a sitting Federal Appeals Court judge should be subjected to a polygraph. Especially one with an established reputation such as his.0 -
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence barring proof of guilt,.....and how long will females be able to wreck the careers and aspirations of males with the simple spoken (and unproven) word?
This whole fiasco is ludicrous.[xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence barring proof of guilt,.....and how long will females be able to wreck the careers and aspirations of males with the simple spoken (and unproven) word?
This whole fiasco is ludicrous.[xx(]
Oh no..Progressives (Harry Reid specifically) invented the "seriousness of an allegation in itself is evidence against the accused". This of course rarely applies to them because they have no morals or sense of decency0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
Over something that happened in high school?
No, he will be toast for his public denials should the allegations prove to be true.
Evidence might include providing the details to a health care provider during therapy 6 years ago.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022344128649
"Results indicated that 26% of participants ?recovered#65533; a complete memory for the false experience and another 30% recalled aspects of the false experience. Real, implanted, and fabricated memories differed on several dimensions (e.g., confidence, vividness, details, repeated details, coherence, stress). These findings have important implications for the debate over recovered and false memories."
Not a huge fan of trusting 'health care providers' when it comes to memories dating back a few decades.
If it happened, you are correct the Kavanaugh's denials should keep him off the court. Kavanaugh obviously knows this, and if there were any truth to the accusation, is smart enough to address it honestly.
Absent some additional corroboration, it is difficult for me to jump on the bandwagon of destroying a man's career because some Bernie Sanders sycophant may have made the decision that he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Perhaps you should read the article for applicability.
The woman is not a child, nor do we have any information that she was an experimental subject being coached by her parents in a fabricated narrative, prior to her discussion with a health care provider some six years ago.
Perhaps Kavanaugh is the subject of false or impaired memory.
Perhaps a polygraph would be to his benefit.
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
Nor has anything that she and Feinstein said about this has been credible.
if Feinstein thought It was remotely credible she would have brought it out right away.
If Ford wanted to be taken seriously, she would not have sent it to just one Senator. She would have sent it to every Senator along with the FBI
What makes me highly suspicious of her is that Finestein held on to it for so long. If it was credible, why didn't Feinstein to bring it out right away. Because it's not credible, she wanted to wait until it was too late to do anything about the false accusations for the 2018 elections...
Keep on reaching for straws Barzillia, that's what you Democrats do best0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?0 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
[:D][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
Now we're getting somewhere. I contend she IS an antelope, and barz can not prove that she isn't.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
My god, man, she donated money to Bernie Sanders for President.
If she was an impressionable child in 2016, it only makes sense that she was an impressionable child in 2012.
Edit: On a serious note, however, you assert though implication that the study was done on children? Perhaps it is you who should read for applicability. If you read the entire article, it seems the subjects of this experiment were adults.
No, I stated that she is not a child and that her parents did not likely take part in an experiment to falsely plant information/memories regarding something that happened when she was 17 years old.
Is she credible ?
I don't know.
Nothing anybody has posted in this thread, however, has indicated that she is not.
I just love it when you parse your own words. It is frustrating, and is damaging to the continuation of a discussion, but fun none-the-less.
For what it is worth, she does not appear to be an antelope. Does that advance the conversation?
Whether criminal or civil the accuser, be it prosecutor or plaintiff, bears the burden of proving their case - "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" or "by a preponderance of the evidence". To suggest the accused must disprove the case of the accuser is of course deliberate misdirection. It may be expeditious to do so, for the accused to affirmatively prove the accuser's position is untenable as a matter of fact or law, but it's not required. And it ought not be, unless we prefer to dispose of the presumption of innocence mantra that has served us reasonably well for a few hundred years. Some seem inclined to do so because they disapprove of certain players or causes.
Thus far the accuser's timing, affiliations and that any "evidence" is self generated and uncorroborated, doesn't speak well of her case. That a person believes something happened doesn't make it so.0 -
My claim is more supportable.
Barzillia, whilst drunk off his arse, groped her not to be mentioned regions and tried to bump uglies with her at a HS party, she forgot who it was after over three decades.
Now, 35 years later in an effort to make her a safe space and feel all better about global warming she blames the other guy.....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Now, fellas...
You always have to believe the accuser in these cases.
Unless, of course, her name is Kathleen, Juanita, or Paula.
Left out Anita.[:D]0 -
If anyone would like to read the letter --
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.
They're talking on PBS right now, Kellyanne Conway speaking. Says Kavanaugh says he was not even at the party. Kelly and is ripping Fienstien.
She shut down the hag interviewer who was trying to corner her on what ifs etc.0 -
After reading this and barzillas responses I have come to the conclusin that barzilla is the string on a TAMPAX[:I] 0 -
I don't know who is wrong or right. The timing certainly is interesting. Democrats sure backed off criticizing Senator Feinstein for bringing it out later, when a follow up nomination is impossible to get through before the mid-terms, rather than sooner when Republicans could recover. I hope whomever questions the accuser does so as vigorously as will be done to the accused. No quarter should be given based on sympathy, nor deference shown based on sensitivity to the supposed offense. Other than whatever decorum is needed to not overtly offend the public and damage their position. 0 -
I'm amazed this is still going on with the same people.
Anyone remember Clarence Thomas?
Anita Hill told about the pubic hair and that was it.
She presented no relevant information and Thomas was confirmed.
As long as President Trump does not withdraw the nomination, Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed.0 -
The lefturds will do any thing, crime, propaganda they deem necessary and "righteous". Its OK to break the laws you do not like.[;)]
cnn and their fellow suck bag demoncraps keep proving it every day.0 -
Most prosecutors who go to court with this kind of or lack of evidence will be lucky to escape with small chunks of their asses left intact. If the democrats can?t set up a fraud on the court any better than this, they would be better off being honest. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by jimdeere
Over something that happened in high school?
No, he will be toast for his public denials should the allegations prove to be true.
Evidence might include providing the details to a health care provider during therapy 6 years ago.
And do tell, what is the standard of proof that will convict him Barz?
What type of proof will shut this down? How do you prove something didn't happen?
Just the nature of it is proof enough it didn't happen in my eyes, what are your thoughts or opinion on if he is guilty or innocent and what would convince you?
Since this is not a criminal case, he will not be convicted of anything.
And you can take as "proof" whatever you want.
I have already told you what may be a factor in judging the preponderance of the evidence.
A polygraph may also be useful in determining credibility.
POLYGRAPH!! Yea, that won't happen to her because she is a complete sham. I will bet you a c-note to that will NEVER happen. Taker? or just more smoke from the Halloween H2O machine?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I do not know what the facts of the alleged interaction actually are.
How is that you do, to make such a claim ?
Probably because she released a statement about it already.
1) She doesn't remember exactly when it happened (denying Kavanaugh any chance of an alibi)
2) She doesn't remember where it happened (denying the property owners a chance to say there was no party at that time)
3) The other guy in the room, who supposedly broke up the rape in progress, said it never happened.
And so you don't have any facts regarding the alleged incident, either.
Both Kelly Ann Conway and POTUS say they need to give a hearing to the claims.
Perhaps they should.
We'll see !
You are killing me with your total foolishness and horse blinders you have on. [:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
If anyone would like to read the letter --
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html
Well hell, I have misjudged the young lady. The only reason she wrote the letter was she ?felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.?
As soon as I locate Jane Fonda and confess to her I?ve been in love with her for fifty years, I?ll try to locate what?s her name and apologize to her for misjudging her so badly. What a brave and civic minded young lady.0 -
So, let me see if I understand all this
Democrats had this information in July but waited until right before the vote to bring it up.
The judge who has by the accounts of dozens of people (women) he has worked with and those he has dated say he is an impeccable person
A woman, an admitted progressive who's parents were the defendants in a foreclosure in which the Judge's mother was the judge and who's brother is a lawyer with a firm involved in creating the Russian collusion witch hunt is accusing him of something to which there is no evidence at all about an event 35 years ago that can not in anyway be proven one way or another and all of this was not planned as partisan liberal intentions to find a way around the legal process to confirm or not a supreme court judge.
And we should believe them? Besides Barz who is till blubbering about his girl losing
Sounds right
If this ploy works there will never be another male on the SCOTUS0 -
0
-
^
Setting aside all the other issues, reports I've read state Kavanaugh's mother ruled in favor of Ford's parents in their bankruptcy case. However, ruling "in favor of" can be misleading in such matters. One may ask for the moon and stars & be granted only a bit of sunshine. Suing for $9M and having it reduced to $800K - the plaintiff prevails but was it a win?0 -
It crossed my mind if the coming Monday hearing set by Senate is done as usual each has a turn to question this Ford lady Dems will walk her through with softballs and the pusseyfied Rhinos will give her a few hardball questions. But if you could temporarily have someone from the house question her Trey Gowdey would be the one to do it. She would leave there in tears after telling the truth and crawl back in the hole she came from 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
172 comments