Official Kavanaugh hearing thread

[WDavE 332]

16 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Yup. 

But remember is wasn't a trial!

 

Did it not bother anyone when Mrs. Ford did not even know of the offer by the Judiciary Committee to come to her in private to take her testimony! Why didn't her lawyers tell her? Most reasonable people know......

 

[homersapien 11,613]

10 hours ago, Mikey said:

No. Putting anyone other than Kavanaugh on the court rewards a tactic of conveniently revealing unfounded accusations and getting the desired result from those unfounded accusations. Unless there is solid proof that Kavanaugh assaulted the Ford woman or any other woman, her testimony should be considered a political ploy and this entire farce ignored except as a lesson to those who tried to pull this stuff off and failed.

That's a statement based on opinion instead of facts.

Ford's accusations have not been proven to be unfounded.  Kavanaugh's testimony is not sufficient to prove that, especially considering he obviously lied about trivial things about that period.

[AUDub 11,244]

A vulture on the horizon, looking to feast on the bones. 

 

[AUDub 11,244]

8 minutes ago, WDavE said:

But remember is wasn't a trial!

The Rs wanted to frame it as hearing both sides. They didn’t come close to doing that. 

 

[homersapien 11,613]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You are not paying attention. The Borking Machine DARED Trump to pick Barret. They wanted to destroy her and her "religiousness" more than BK. Name her, this would have been 2x worse. 

That's total speculation.  BS if you prefer.

[AuMarine 1,372]

Why wouldn't Mrs. Ford walk into the Maryland county police department and file a report? No statute of limitations.. just go on in and give them the information. Let the police and detectives do their jobs.. 

[homersapien 11,613]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

We agree. I don't believe her story. She was possibly assaulted by someone at some place and at some time. Most likely she is lying about her attacker being Kavanaugh. Were the political situation not as it is, I'd give her a definite Maybe. Toss in how the politics works out and it's all just too, too, timely and convenient.

You probably don't see it, but that's an admission of your bias.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Dr Ford was not convincing. Sorry. I have been too close to people that were abused, molested, etc. They remember every frickin detail of it. They remember the smells, the feel of the day's air. They certainly remembered the place and other details of how they got there. Her testimony just doesnt come close to meeting any standard of convincingness for me. To be smeared and slandered over absolutely nothing charges 30+ years later.with, to be very blunt, no detail at all is a waste of time.

Sorry, but after everything else, all I saw was a woman dying to put her ***** hat on and parade around the room. 

Wholeheartedly disagree.  And experts on sexual trauma who study this and counsel victims for a living would tell you the same thing.  They will remember the attack, the perp, smells, (in her case) the laughter, the music, the layout of the house, etc. sharply.  But peripheral details like who drove her home and such would be fuzzy, especially 35 years later.

If anyone wasn't credible, it was Kavanaugh.  He was clearly lying about aspects of his behavior and way he conducted himself back then, from his drinking habits, to his attitudes about women and sex.  No sane person is buying that the "Beach Week Ralph Club" was about him having a weak stomach over spicy/exotic foods and not about going to the beach and getting drunk off your ass and puking.  Did all the club members have sensitive stomachs?  Of course not. No one who bothers to Google believes his various explanation for what terms like FFFFFFF, "boofing", or Devil's Triangle meant.  No one, including the woman whose name they used, believes "Renate Alumnus" is just a group of swell guys who counted Renate Schroeder as their friend.  It was just one weirdly evasive answer after another that looks more designed to avoid admitting anything that would make it plausible to think he was in the habit of drinking to excess and having very crude sexual attitudes at the time.

 

[TitanTiger 20,570]

4 minutes ago, AuMarine said:

Why wouldn't Mrs. Ford walk into the Maryland county police department and file a report? No statute of limitations.. just go on in and give them the information. Let the police and detectives do their jobs.. 

My understanding is that back in 1982, an attempted rape like this was a misdemeanor.  The laws changing the statute of limitations on this only changed in 1996 and it's not clear it's retroactive.

Also, this wasn't about convicting him.  I think we all agree that this many years later it would be nigh on impossible to meet the standard of proof for a criminal charge, so it doesn't make sense to even try.  But this wasn't a criminal court.  It was a hearing to determine credibility and evaluate the character of someone you're about to appoint for life to one of the most powerful and prestigious positions in the country. 

[homersapien 11,613]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Let's put aside the story from this Avenatti accuser and the gang rape stuff.  I don't know what to make of that claim right now and he's not an attorney that lends more credibility to a story.

Just focus on Mrs. Ford's claims.  I don't think that means you have a monster on your hands.  I think what you have is an entitled, full of himself prep school jock who thinks he can just have what he wants.  He's a hard partier and was frequently drunk and sometimes he thought his winning personality and sports jock status meant he could "convince" girls to give it up to him.  In his mind it might not have even been rape.  Maybe he thought she was flirting with him and his friend and was 'into it.'  

Regardless, it's not that big of a leap to think that young men in HS and college would have terrible attitudes toward women and sex but eventually stop being like that.  Maybe they get religion.  Maybe someone talks to them about it and changes their mind.  Or may they just realize they need to be more selective in the girls they go after because they don't want to derail their careers and they go on to live relatively normal lives.  Maybe they even regret some of the things they did and have lived since trying to make up for it.  I don't know.  But being this way in HS or college doesn't consign someone to being that way for ever.  But what he did, if true, is still very serious especially given that he's denying it (meaning he's flat out lying if it is true) and he never apologized for it before.

As an aside, I think that's also an interesting point.  What would this situation be like if he had gone back and apologized to her back then or even several years after?  Just called her up and met her for coffee and said that he knows that when he was younger he drank too much and got aggressive sexually with some girls and that he's a different man now and expressed true regret and remorse for putting her in that situation and asked for forgiveness.  Maybe I'm crazy but Mrs. Ford doesn't come off to me like a hateful bitch who'd ruin him for doing that.  I think it would have given her some closure and some peace and I think he'd have been forgiven and this never comes up.

You left off an obvious one - simply growing up. 

Many males don't reach full mental maturity until their mid-twenties, psychologically or brain physiologically.

Regardless, the proposition this incident would probably have exhibited itself as a lifelong pattern is absurd.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Actually, I'm right.  The police have confirmed the statute of limitations would be long since passed:

 

Quote

...even if an accuser went to the local department, the statute of limitations for pursuing the crimes as described in Thursday’s dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing appears to have long since passed.

The most serious crime that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor crime in Maryland in 1982, which would be the relevant legal application.

As a misdemeanor, it carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to have been filed within a year after an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor; Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault; and other longtime Maryland attorneys interviewed in recent days.

The Maryland legislature changed the law in 1996, making attempted rape a felony and removing the statute of limitations, according to McCarthy and Jordan.

“But we’d have to apply the law as it existed at the time of the allegations,” McCarthy said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.e49c9b9891df

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, AuMarine said:

Why wouldn't Mrs. Ford walk into the Maryland county police department and file a report? No statute of limitations.. just go on in and give them the information. Let the police and detectives do their jobs.. 

Here is a non-spin answer:

Because then the democrats wouldn’t be able to retreat into their “victim” corner. The last thing they want is for an actual court to get involved. Trust me. They were banking that yesterday would go much better.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Actually, I'm right.  The police have confirmed the statute of limitations would be long since passed:

 

 

“The police have confirmed” LOL! Didn’t know they made those determinations.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

“The police have confirmed” LOL! Didn’t know they made those determinations.

I misapplied who confirmed it.  A simple read of the article would have cleared it up for you.

As a misdemeanor, it carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to have been filed within a year after an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor; Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault; and other longtime Maryland attorneys interviewed in recent days.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Here is a non-spin answer:

Because then the democrats wouldn’t be able to retreat into their “victim” corner. The last thing they want is for an actual court to get involved. Trust me. They were banking that yesterday would go much better.

Here's the real answer:  Because the statute of limitations is expired.

[homersapien 11,613]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

How many times must this point be made?

It won't matter.  David presides in his own special world, impervious to outside influences.

[Barnacle 9,064]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Here is a non-spin answer:

Because then the democrats wouldn’t be able to retreat into their “victim” corner. The last thing they want is for an actual court to get involved. Trust me. They were banking that yesterday would go much better.

The statute of limitations aside, would you recommend to her that she press for charges against him? Would that be in her best interests?

[nurbis 579]

Ford on her therapist's notes from 2012: the therapist said 4 boys were in the room but that was a mistake, there were 4 boys at the party but only 2 in the room

Ford's letter to Feinstein on July 30: I was at a party that included me and 4 others

Ford's polygraph statement on August 7: there were 4 boys and a couple of girls

All three of the above statements come from Ford about how many people were at this party. Why is the number of people at this party a moving target? She is sure there were 4 boys during her therapy session and she was sure there were only 5 people total including herself in her letter to Feinstein dated July 30. So based on her therapy notes and letter to Feinstein, this party included her and 4 boys. Then 8 days later, on August 7,  after she has had legal counsel, she states there were 4 boys and a couple of girls. So in 8 days, we went from 5 people at the party which, based on her statements, included herself and 4 boys, to approximately 7 people at the party including herself, 4 boys, and a couple (2) of girls. Why did this change and what was the point in adding girls to the story? I don't necessarily believe Ford is lying but I do believe she is withholding information for some reason.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

The statute of limitations aside, would you recommend to her that she press for charges against him? Would that be in her best interests?

At this point, probably not. Three months ago, yes. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I misapplied who confirmed it.  A simple read of the article would have cleared it up for you.

As a misdemeanor, it carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to have been filed within a year after an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor; Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault; and other longtime Maryland attorneys interviewed in recent days.

 

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Here's the real answer:  Because the statute of limitations is expired.

Wrong. Asserting that she would only be able to bring forth a claim of "attempted rape" is inaccurate. Not only does it ignore the elements discovery and the fact-finding process, but it is a premature conclusion of law that cannot possibly be calculated with substantial certainty. Furthermore, it would help to read the legislative record. What if the amendment was remedial in nature? Retroactive? Purely prospective?  

Again, quit believing everything you read on the internet. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

At this point, probably not. Three months ago, yes. 

What's the upside for her? Its an almost certain non-pros, don't you agree?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Barnacle said:

What's the upside for her? Its an almost certain non-pros, don't you agree?

I am not sure what you're asking. If someone committed a crime against your person, you should tell the police. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I am not sure what you're asking. If someone committed a crime against your person, you should tell the police. 

You should always tell the police? Even when it isn't in your best interest to do so?

[homersapien 11,613]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Here is a non-spin answer:

Because then the democrats wouldn’t be able to retreat into their “victim” corner. The last thing they want is for an actual court to get involved. Trust me. They were banking that yesterday would go much better.

"Trust me"  

[TitanTiger 20,570]

42 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong. Asserting that she would only be able to bring forth a claim of "attempted rape" is inaccurate. Not only does it ignore the elements discovery and the fact-finding process, but it is a premature conclusion of law that cannot possibly be calculated with substantial certainty. Furthermore, it would help to read the legislative record. What if the amendment was remedial in nature? Retroactive? Purely prospective?  

Again, quit believing everything you read on the internet. 

Hmm...who to believe, who to believe?  Snot-nosed law student who thinks he knows everything, or long time Montgomery Country, MD chief prosecutor and multiple other attorneys who practice in the county and state of the laws in question?

Such difficult decisions.  A coin flip really.