Herochat

General Forums => Debate => Topic started by: Propeus The Fallen on September 07, 2018, 01:37:49 PM

Title: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 07, 2018, 01:37:49 PM
What the hell is his problem?

Seriously, is he just bipolar?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: ProjectCornDog on September 07, 2018, 01:39:43 PM
A younger non war hero version of John McCain, IE the song "Highway to Hell" will eventually apply to him as well.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Thanos6 on September 07, 2018, 04:48:55 PM
What the hell is his problem?

Seriously, is he just bipolar?

Speaking as an SC resident and native, everyone in the state wonders that about him.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 07, 2018, 06:22:11 PM
He was totally gay for McCain.  Now that his lover is dead, he's lost it even moreso.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: MTL76 on September 07, 2018, 07:12:41 PM
What'd he do now?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 08, 2018, 04:26:35 AM
Well, he said the op-ed proved that Trump didn't collude with Russia for one thing...

Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 08, 2018, 10:12:22 AM
Well, he said the op-ed proved that Trump didn't collude with Russia for one thing...

But there's no evidence he did.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: ProjectCornDog on September 08, 2018, 10:39:56 AM
Two things can exist at once. Trump didn't collude with Russia and Lindsey Graham is a piece of war mongering shit.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 09, 2018, 01:29:02 AM
...

Um, didn't his son collude with Russia and told his dad about it, who then wrote notes for him to say? Isn't that collusion?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 09, 2018, 11:41:57 AM
By that logic, wouldn't the Steele dossier, researched by a brit with sources from russian intelligence also be russian collusion?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 09, 2018, 11:43:15 AM
Furthermore, foreign governments giving money to campaigns with the purpose of influencing the election in their favor...collusion?  By the definition you are using?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 09, 2018, 11:48:06 AM
maybe. Others just smart enough to do it in a way that skirts the law but not actully illegal

It was stolen information. Reather people think that fair game..or collusion not a crime. Or if their bigger crimes out there, or the information should of been out

it hard not to argue that what happen with trump JR not collusion. Only thing left if we should bother to do anything about. If that not collusion..what the fuck is.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 09, 2018, 11:55:13 AM
Stolen information.  Think about what you are saying.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 09, 2018, 12:04:18 PM
Stolen information.  Think about what you are saying.

well lot of the info was from the hack. So yea stolen.  Water gate was just them trying to steal info of some files.  Was kind of a big deal. Now info kept on computers

As for accepting money from foreign goverment. Your actully not susposed to do that during a a campaign. It actully quite illegal.  Even though during the campaign Trump tried twice.  Their rules against Foreign nationals giving to campaigns.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 09, 2018, 12:09:09 PM
little info on that in case people think I am pulling that one out the old poop shoot

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 09, 2018, 03:18:32 PM
Stolen information.  Think about what you are saying.

well lot of the info was from the hack. So yea stolen.  Water gate was just them trying to steal info of some files.  Was kind of a big deal. Now info kept on computers

As for accepting money from foreign goverment. Your actully not susposed to do that during a a campaign. It actully quite illegal.  Even though during the campaign Trump tried twice.  Their rules against Foreign nationals giving to campaigns.

So collusion is ok if you pay for the information.

And as for accepting money from foreign governments, where have you been?  The Clintons have done that for years, and they are just one example.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 09, 2018, 03:20:55 PM
I assume you are against people leaking info from inside the Trump administration, because it's stealing.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: superlurker on September 09, 2018, 04:31:51 PM
By that logic, wouldn't the Steele dossier, researched by a brit with sources from russian intelligence also be russian collusion?

Steele wasn't running for any elected post anywhere, and he wasn't using that info to that effect. He had been retained to find dirt on Trump at one point, which he clearly did.

By contrast, the Trump campaign was sought out by agents of the Russian government that sought to influence the election, and at minimum agreed to meet them in secret to see what they could offer.

One is normal research by an apparently competent researcher. The other is secretly receiving aid from a foreign government to influence the election. If all that took place was the meeting that's been known (and that Trump has been trying to mislead investigators about) it's not exactly a grand conspiracy, but it's still a form of collusion.

In the best case scenario for Trump, that meeting may just have been a case of them gleefully thinking they'd do politics just the way it's done on TV, like some kind of Donald Underwood. In a worse case, there may be other elements to it, like the question of Trump's financial ties to Russia, or even what's up with the  Trump Tower server business (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html).
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 09, 2018, 04:39:39 PM
Stolen information.  Think about what you are saying.

well lot of the info was from the hack. So yea stolen.  Water gate was just them trying to steal info of some files.  Was kind of a big deal. Now info kept on computers

As for accepting money from foreign goverment. Your actully not susposed to do that during a a campaign. It actully quite illegal.  Even though during the campaign Trump tried twice.  Their rules against Foreign nationals giving to campaigns.

So collusion is ok if you pay for the information.

And as for accepting money from foreign governments, where have you been?  The Clintons have done that for years, and they are just one example.

paying for stolen info is different. that actullt rather illegal

Clinton got money for her charity. which she hasn't pocketed like trump did with his charity. it at the line but not illegal. now ok maybe it should be

but accepting foreign money for an election against current law. and it not like Clinton hasn't be investigated for that shit. this not opinion this is the law. collusion may be also. also saying Clinton did it too doesn't make something illegal

trump just to dumb to do it in a legal way

I assume you are against people leaking info from inside the Trump administration, because it's stealing.

actually yea said omarasa probably should be arrested in the topic I made about

also don't like people circumventing the president because that a bad precident. because the GOP won't be in power forever. don't want the same thing happening to a progressive. and these people are unelected

spoke against the leaking of trump speech with a foreign country that was leak early in his campaign in the topic I made about that

also though blame trump for hiring these guys who always leak like crazy because he created that atmosphere.  everyone seem to know that Bannon was leaking but trump kept him for so long

and the hack actually worst since it not just an insider telling the info that they know which have some protections. it's a digital break in

it a different if seth rich gave and info and if it was a hack. that why so many try to say it wasn't because that a whole different set of crimes

this is why omrasa the worst of the leaks because she snuck in a tape



Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: LiquidSailor on September 09, 2018, 06:34:19 PM
Stolen information.  Think about what you are saying.

well lot of the info was from the hack. So yea stolen.  Water gate was just them trying to steal info of some files.  Was kind of a big deal. Now info kept on computers

As for accepting money from foreign goverment. Your actully not susposed to do that during a a campaign. It actully quite illegal.  Even though during the campaign Trump tried twice.  Their rules against Foreign nationals giving to campaigns.

So collusion is ok if you pay for the information.

And as for accepting money from foreign governments, where have you been?  The Clintons have done that for years, and they are just one example.

paying for stolen info is different. that actullt rather illegal

Clinton got money for her charity. which she hasn't pocketed like trump did with his charity. it at the line but not illegal. now ok maybe it should be

but accepting foreign money for an election against current law. and it not like Clinton hasn't be investigated for that shit. this not opinion this is the law. collusion may be also. also saying Clinton did it too doesn't make something illegal

trump just to dumb to do it in a legal way 

Charities are a great way to avoid donation limits for campaigns.  Funny how the Saudis alone gave her more than 30m.  Or Citi Group giving her 10 million.  And countless other examples.  By the way, did you think all money that goes to a charity gets spent on the goals of said charity?  By law there is a minimum amount of cash that has to be used for the cause your charity champions.  The Clinton Foundation itself further confuses how much money it actually uses for charity, as it hands sums of cash to other charities.   But considering how evil the Saudis are, I'm sure all the cash they funneled into the foundation was just to atone for past misdeeds, and not because they wanted something of Clinton when she was secretary of state, or trying to become president.

So yes, it is against the law to accept foreign money into your campaign in the form of donations.  Which Clinton conveniently skirted under the guise of her charity.  So she did it.  Do we know for a fact that Trump did?  Russian banks paying off debts of his failed business ventures might very well make him indebted to them, but it is certainly no different or even the same as Clinton's doings.  But if we accept that Clinton's way of doing this should be illegal but isn't due to funneling cash through a charity, than you'd have to come to the same conclusion about Trump being bailed out by Russian banks.

I assume you are against people leaking info from inside the Trump administration, because it's stealing.
actually yea said omarasa probably should be arrested in the topic I made about

also don't like people circumventing the president because that a bad precident. because the GOP won't be in power forever. don't want the same thing happening to a progressive. and these people are unelected

spoke against the leaking of trump speech with a foreign country that was leak early in his campaign in the topic I made about that

also though blame trump for hiring these guys who always leak like crazy because he created that atmosphere.  everyone seem to know that Bannon was leaking but trump kept him for so long

and the hack actually worst since it not just an insider telling the info that they know which have some protections. it's a digital break in

it a different if seth rich gave and info and if it was a hack. that why so many try to say it wasn't because that a whole different set of crimes

this is why omrasa the worst of the leaks because she snuck in a tape

DNC sure was ready to blame russia and yet wasn't willing to let the FBI take a look at their servers.  The factual information that came from that leak was just prove of what anyone with a brain already knew.  Yet the DNC and media did a good job of drumming up the red scare rather than addressing it.

Omarosa's moron ass is just out for cash, and never has good intentions beyond what benefits herself.  None of the information she provided means anything, implicates any crimes, or even matters.

The american people have the right to know the corruption of these parties.  If the Trump administration didn't want so many leaks, they probably should have taken the time to hire better people for the jobs they filled.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 09, 2018, 11:26:32 PM
well again the charity  been investigated has an a+ . rating. if some of the money got in her hands hillary hands it up to the law to prove it. and they sure as fuck tried

so what she did is legal.  what trump did if he colluded is not. so is potential money laundering.  if you think it should be legal  or treated the same as hillary. that a different argument to if he did it or not

if it turn out she was fudiling money and got caught she should be arrested. but wouldn't magically make what trump did legal. Hillary can be terrible or a criminal and trump could have colluded. both could be true. if this was president Hillary she be impeach already . sh

either she didn't do anything. or unlike trump she didn't do it an obvious and dumb way . like she didn't use he charity to pay if personal debts or make a cool ass painting

actually omarasa info being pointless doesn't matter. you cant fucking secretly record shit in a classified area. next time they might get something important and show shitty security

but also shows that idea I'm cool with leaks when it against people I dislike is wrong. that shit sets a horrible prescient if you let that shit past

and yes trump shouldnt have hired ass hole who leak. there no heroes in this
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 24, 2018, 01:56:26 AM
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-ford-lindsey-graham-837391

Again what the hell is his problem?!!

Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Thanos6 on September 24, 2018, 02:06:13 AM
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-ford-lindsey-graham-837391

Again what the hell is his problem?!!

Like I said, us here in SC have been wondering that for years.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 24, 2018, 10:06:09 AM
Don't worry. I understand. I live in Tennessee. I know what it's like to have insane people running your state.

But...maybe, just maybe...sanity will come this fall. Probably not knowing all these idiots, but it's more hope I've had in years. :)
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 25, 2018, 12:11:52 PM
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-ford-lindsey-graham-837391

Again what the hell is his problem?!!

A senator shouldn’t give an ultimate opinion before the hearing. It creates an appearance of prejudgment. However, while it’s bad form, it isn’t crazy to think that Ford’s testimony shouldn’t be a deciding factor unless it is corroborated by other witnesses.

Right now, her friend who was allegedly at the get-together where this occurred states that she’s never met Kavanaugh. Ford’s description of the number of people at the party has changed (from four people besides herself to a total of four boys and two girls), and both of her accounts contradict her psychologist’s notes (which suggest four boys were involved in the actual assault). She’s suggested that her psychologist made a mistake in writing the notes that way. Unless she waives the psychotherapist/patient privilege, we’re probably not going to hear from the psychologist.

If Ford testifies and sounds emotional and articulate, that would decrease the likelihood that she intentionally fabricated the story. But it wouldn’t necessarily decrease the likelihood of an inaccurate memory:

https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happened-memory-recollection

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/online/interview-with-memory-expert-dr-loftus-therapy-books-could-have-manipulated-kavanaugh-accusers-story/amp/

http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2005/november/cjp-nov-05-mcnally-IR-nov.pdf

Emotionality Does Not Confirm Veracity

People suffering from PTSD who recall their traumatic experiences in the laboratory often report intense anguish and exhibit psychophysiologic activation congruent with the subjective experience (15). However, one cannot infer the veracity of a memory from the emotion that accompanies recollection—a fact sometimes forgotten by traumatologists.

For example, several years ago, when some patients were recovering “memories” of satanic ritual abuse, the intense emotion accompanying these “recollections” convinced many therapists that something truly horrific had happened to these individuals. As Bloom affirmed, “we can say with a high degree of certainty that their symptom picture is consistent only with trauma of monumental proportions” (16, p 463).

In reality, sincere belief that one has been traumatized can produce intense emotional arousal at least as great as that exhibited by PTSD patients. For example, our research group recruited individuals who reported having been abducted and traumatized by space aliens and exposed them to audiotaped scripts of their abduction trauma in the psychophysiology laboratory (17).

The typical abductee was not suffering from psyhosis, was characterized by a rich imagination, had a history of isolated sleep paralysis accompanied by hypnopompic (“upon awakening”) hallucinations of extraterrestrial intruders in the bedroom, and had undergone hypnotic memory recovery sessions in which detailed accounts of being medically and sexually probed on spaceships emerged (18,19).

Exposure to their audiotaped “false memories” of trauma provoked marked subjective distress and psychophysiologic reactivity (for example, heart rate, skin conductance, and facial electromyographic activity) (17). Strikingly, the degree of reactivity was greater than that exhibited by Vietnam veterans diagnosed with PTSD when they listened to audiotaped scripts of their war trauma (20).

Belief that one has been traumatized can result in subjective and psychophysiologic responses indistinguishable from responses of those suffering from PTSD. Accordingly, one cannot infer the veracity of a memory from the emotional responses accompanying it.


If Graham is suggesting that he wouldn’t change his vote even if Kavanaugh’s own testimony is unbelievable, or even if another witness or more evidence emerged, then that would be nuts. But if he really just meant that Ford’s testimony alone is unlikely to change his vote, it’s  not a preposterous stance. It’s just poor form to say that before the hearing begins.

I say this as someone who doesn’t want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. I’d much prefer Merrick Garland.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 26, 2018, 01:10:35 PM
dont see why it shouldnt be a factor since it a lifetimr appointment.  lot if high level goverment jobs go through your backround in a more detailed way then this it just not as public

their going to gey a consetvative on the bench anyway can see republicans going why pick this guy who has so much baggage

also clarence thomas was put through this for a far lesser charge
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 26, 2018, 01:23:20 PM
dont see why it shouldnt be a factor since it a lifetimr appointment.  lot if high level goverment jobs go through your backround in a more detailed way then this it just not as public

their going to gey a consetvative on the bench anyway can see republicans going why pick this guy who has so much baggage

also clarence thomas was put through this for a far lesser charge

You phrased your first sentence as though we disagree on some point. But I don’t think there’s actually any disagreement between what you just said and what I said.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: ProjectCornDog on September 26, 2018, 04:37:40 PM
I hope there's a genuine investigation.

All these women can't be ignored. But the questions cant be ignored either. For example, this new accuser...why would she return multiple times to parties where gang rapes were routinely happening? What highschool parties exist where theres a line of men waiting for their turn next with the girl in question? How does this happen without anyone saying anything except these accusers who said nothing beforehand?

I'm personally not a fan of Kavanaugh, a Bush appointee. But I also don't think allegations alone should ruin your name. This isn't Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein. Their accusers DID speak out, most were ignored outright (for example, the accuser who put Bill in jail went to the police a year later after the incident). One of Harvey's accusers actually volunteered to wear a wire to prove Harvey was guilty (where he incriminated himself but the corrupt DA decided not to pursue).

But of course there's the other side of this as well, what do these women coming out gain from this? If anything they subscribed to a lifetime of polarization and character attacks.

I only see an investigation as the only way to come to the bottom of this.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: MTL76 on September 26, 2018, 06:04:39 PM
What do they gain from it? The Left side of the media and the DNC have irresponsibly said that Kavanaugh’s appointment will lead to the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade and lead to an untold number of women dying by back alley abortions. It’s blatant fearmongering. I can easily see a woman hearing this and thinking it’s her duty to stop it. Also, Ford raised 200k by her GoFundMe.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: ProjectCornDog on September 26, 2018, 06:26:16 PM
Didn't think about it that way. And 200k!? Jaysus.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 26, 2018, 07:16:16 PM
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 26, 2018, 07:45:14 PM
The question of motive is a red herring. There can be a myriad of reasons for not reporting a crime to the police. Likewise, there can be many reasons for accusing a public figure of a crime.

I also don’t think the number of claims is illuminating in this case. When explaining that he didn’t get pranked, Avenatti stated:

“We’ve received over 3,000 inquiries in the last six months from people with all kinds of crazy stories and fabrications.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/avenatti-denies-being-duped-4chan-user-over-kavanaugh-accuser-1138882%3Famp%3D1

The number of allegations matters less than whether any single allegation has been corroborated by eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence such as a written note or diary entry. I think the main issue with the Ford and Ramirez stories so far is that every alleged eyewitness either has no recollection or contradicts the claims.

Right now, the new accuser’s story has some weight because it’s a sworn statement and she swore she knew of other witnesses who would corroborate the gang rape allegations. If there are other witnesses, they need to testify and stop an alleged monster from being a judge even on the DC Circuit. But right now it leaves a lot of questions, like:

1. Why aren’t any of the other alleged gang rape conspirators named in Swetnick’s declaration? Does she just remember Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, but no one else? No one who isn’t in the news?

2. Did any other witnesses see these gang rape lines leading into bedrooms every weekend at the high school parties? If so, did any of the dozens of witnesses report this to parents or friends at the time? Did anyone keep a diary entry or a written note about it?

3. Any more specific details about where/when these parties occurred? The only specific time/place she’s named is “Beach Week,” a phrase that appears on the calendars Kavanaugh had just released right before her statement came out.

4. She graduated high school in 1980 and was two years older than Kavanaugh. She alleges that she continued attending high school parties in 1982. Do other witnesses recall a college age woman who fits her profile regularly attending their high school parties?

5. As an adult, college age woman attending parties where she knew underage girls were being gang raped almost every weekend, did she tell anyone? Did she warn these underage girls to avoid the punchbowl? Were any parents informed? Her declaration states that she has witnesses who can corroborate all of her statements. If that’s true, they need to testify. 
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 26, 2018, 08:27:35 PM
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 26, 2018, 09:09:58 PM
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 26, 2018, 09:58:00 PM
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

She passed. But there were literally only two questions (and it appears that she then scribbled in amended answers in writing). In theory, you need a series a baseline questions for a polygraph to pick up whether your answers are deviating from the baseline. In practice, even with a series of baseline questions, polygraphs are completely unreliable. That’s why they’re inadmissible in court.

I agree it’s believable that even if she knew all along, she’d wait until he’s on a Supreme Court short list to name him. But it’s also consistent with her having a vague, malleable memory, which was filled in with a specific person when she heard Kavanaugh’s name and reviewed a picture of him.

I’m also wondering whether she is saying she knew it was him for 30 years or if she’s claiming it was a repressed memory that came out in 2012. The former is much more scientifically sound than the latter. Many psychologists believe they can help patients recover “repressed” memories. In practice, they’ve often implanted false memories in the process. That’s what led to a number of satanic child abuse accusations in the 1980s-early 90s. Several criminal convictions were overturned when it was found that psychologists had mistakenly implanted false memories. Not saying that’s what happened here, but the senators would be able to rule that out if she let them see the notes and hear from the psychologist in private.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 26, 2018, 10:44:40 PM
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

She passed. But there were literally only two questions (and it appears that she then scribbled in amended answers in writing). In theory, you need a series a baseline questions for a polygraph to pick up whether your answers are deviating from the baseline. In practice, even with a series of baseline questions, polygraphs are completely unreliable. That’s why they’re inadmissible in court.

I agree it’s believable that even if she knew all along, she’d wait until he’s on a Supreme Court short list to name him. But it’s also consistent with her having a vague, malleable memory, which was filled in with a specific person when she heard Kavanaugh’s name and reviewed a picture of him.

I’m also wondering whether she is saying she knew it was him for 30 years or if she’s claiming it was a repressed memory that came out in 2012. The former is much more scientifically sound than the latter. Many psychologists believe they can help patients recover “repressed” memories. In practice, they’ve often implanted false memories in the process. That’s what led to a number of satanic child abuse accusations in the 1980s-early 90s. Several criminal convictions were overturned when it was found that psychologists had mistakenly implanted false memories. Not saying that’s what happened here, but the senators would be able to rule that out if she let them see the notes and hear from the psychologist in private.

well the fact she willing to take the polygram test and was at first wanted to remain anonymous  add to her story

namely wanting an fbi investigation put hey legal risk

for instance beleave the second alledge victim less due to her story being sketchy
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 27, 2018, 09:49:21 AM
Ford story help by she told her therapist before kav was a contender. so unless this playing the long game it helps her credibillity. not enough to make it 100 percent but enough to make her story stronger

woukdnt say thinking they will overtur  woe v wade fear mongering. first that what trump and the gop said they will do

second if they dont overturn it they may nip at. with saying you can't have clinics who walls arent wide enough. which is a true thing they tried

and yes that may lead to women taking matters into their own hands.

and people say no way they would do something so unpopular but a lot if things they done like the health bill and tax thing was wildly unpopular even among their base

think they know 2018 going to be a slaughter and may be in 2020 so they getting as much shit as they can befor their kicked out

The therapist’s notes apparently implicate 4 boys in the assault and don’t mention Kavanaugh by name. By the time she took the polygraph in 2018, she alleged that it was 4 boys and 2 girls in the house, and only 2 boys (Kavanaugh and Judge) were in on the assault. She claims her therapist wrote it down wrong. She isn’t turning over the notes or volunteering to waive privilege so that the therapist can testify. That is unfortunate because the therapist would be a material witness, just as Kavanaugh’s alcoholic friend would be.

She did subsequently name Kavanaugh to 4-5 other people between 2012-18, but 2012 was the year Kavanaugh was named by Romney as a contender to the Supreme Court. One question is whether she brought up Kavanaugh’s name before or after Romney’s people mentioned him.

did she pass the polygram test

for me can see her staying quiet for years till the guy was about to get real power and just couldn't let that happen

She passed. But there were literally only two questions (and it appears that she then scribbled in amended answers in writing). In theory, you need a series a baseline questions for a polygraph to pick up whether your answers are deviating from the baseline. In practice, even with a series of baseline questions, polygraphs are completely unreliable. That’s why they’re inadmissible in court.

I agree it’s believable that even if she knew all along, she’d wait until he’s on a Supreme Court short list to name him. But it’s also consistent with her having a vague, malleable memory, which was filled in with a specific person when she heard Kavanaugh’s name and reviewed a picture of him.

I’m also wondering whether she is saying she knew it was him for 30 years or if she’s claiming it was a repressed memory that came out in 2012. The former is much more scientifically sound than the latter. Many psychologists believe they can help patients recover “repressed” memories. In practice, they’ve often implanted false memories in the process. That’s what led to a number of satanic child abuse accusations in the 1980s-early 90s. Several criminal convictions were overturned when it was found that psychologists had mistakenly implanted false memories. Not saying that’s what happened here, but the senators would be able to rule that out if she let them see the notes and hear from the psychologist in private.

well the fact she willing to take the polygram test and was at first wanted to remain anonymous  add to her story

namely wanting an fbi investigation put hey legal risk

for instance beleave the second alledge victim less due to her story being sketchy

Actually, the fact that she took a polygraph right around the time she sent a letter to the Senate doesn’t really add anything, especially since there were no control questions. If she had failed it, she probably wouldn’t have revealed the result. It was a low risk proposition.

I do want to slightly correct what I said before. For about 70 years, the federal rules of evidence completely excluded polygraphs under the Frye standard because they aren’t accepted as reliable by the scientific community. Since the 1990s, the court switched to the Daubert standard, which allows individual judges to decide whether an expert opinion is reliable. In practice, polygraphs are still excluded in virtually all federal courts because many scientists see them as no more reliable than a coin flip:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/523/303.html

Those who do claim there’s some reliability make that assertion when there are “control” questions to compare the answer against. Ford’s polygraph contained two questions, both about what she told her therapist. No control questions.

There’s also very little legal risk to her allegations because even if she’s wrong, it’s 30 years ago. False memories aren’t that uncommon, especially where therapy is involved. Unless someone has evidence that she’s intentionally lying, there’s not much risk of a perjury charge or a defamation judgment.

On the other hand, Swetnick does face serious legal risk if she doesn’t have other witnesses to the alleged gang rapes. She claimed under oath that she had other witnesses. Georgetown prep students have now signed a letter from Kavanaugh’s attorney disputing her claims that their parties involved gang rapes. If her witnesses don’t appear, it’s hard for her to attribute it to a mistaken memory because all of the details of her claim are similar to recent news stories. The alleged gang rapes involving Mark Judge seem like an exaggerated version of the New Yorker story, where Judge’s ex girlfriend said he told her about one occasion where he and others (not Kavanaugh) all had sex with the same woman, but thought it was consensual. The “mean drunk” allegation also mirrors a claim in the New Yorker story. The “Beach Week” allegation mirrors an entry in Kavanaugh’s calendar, which had just become public. The qualludes allegation mirrors the Bill Cosby story, which was just in the headlines this past week due to his sentencing.
 
Swetnick also seems to have a colorful legal history:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick-defamation-lawsuit-webtrends/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/09/26/plot-twist-kavanaugh-accuser-sued-her-former-employer-for-sexual-harassment-but-thats-not-all-n2523023%3Famp%3Dtrue

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348

Assuming no mistaken identity, she sued a former employer for sexual harassment. She was represented by Ford’s current attorney. The case settled. She also was sued by her former employer for defamation and fraud. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (which often means there was a settlement). And her former boyfriend sued her for domestic abuse, but dismissed the case claiming financial reasons.

And now, there are two new anonymous women claiming Kavanaugh attacked them. Plus two new men claiming they, not Kavanaugh, were involved in an encounter with Ford:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1439569002

This is getting surreal.

To bring this back on topic, Lindsay Graham weighs in again:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/lindsey-graham-i-dont-buy-third-accusers-allegations%3F_amp%3Dtrue

He claims Avenetti’s involvement with the Swetnick claim and the facial implausibility are “all you need to know.” That’s stupid. While the claim is remarkable, that doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Swetnick says she has witnesses. They need to come forward.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: XerxesTWD on September 27, 2018, 11:11:14 AM
Lindsey Graham can't really maintain any consistency in what he says. He's directly contradicted himself on multiple occasions.


If Kavanaugh is eventually removed from the equation, he'll say it was "for the best" and "maybe what should have happened in the first place, but we had to follow procedure".
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: MTL76 on September 27, 2018, 09:06:36 PM
What did you guys think of the hearing today?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 27, 2018, 11:49:13 PM
A disgrace. It's pathetic how our country has been divided. Only a few democrats held some sort of standard.

And as for Lindsey Graham--he's a disgrace. I thought not defending his best friend was pathetic, but today--he's human garbage to me.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 28, 2018, 09:40:33 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408909-graham-ford-has-a-problem-and-destroying-judge-kavanaughs-life-wont-fix-her

Again. HUMAN GARBAGE.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 28, 2018, 10:42:16 AM
I disagree. Lindsey Graham’s assessment of the evidence and the senators’ handling of this was accurate:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/lindsey-graham-kavanaugh-ford/571558/

He’s right that it appears Dianne Feinstein and the lawyer intentionally timed this to create a public
spectacle. It’s disgusting that senators were using this hearing as a fundraising tool just minutes after it began.

I only watched clips of the testimony, but both witnesses had believable acccounts. I think both of them believed what they were saying was the truth. That’s why the evidence outside of their memory is crucial and should’ve been reviewed in private.

The simplest explanation is that one of the witnesses is misremembering. Before the hearing, memory expert Elizabeth Lofthus explained how she would approach this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/online/interview-with-memory-expert-dr-loftus-therapy-books-could-have-manipulated-kavanaugh-accusers-story/amp/

None of the relevant facts for even reducing the likelihood of a false memory came out at this hearing. The lawyer refused to produce the psychologist’s notes before the hearing. According to news reports, those notes suggest four attackers in the room. Not just four people at the alleged party. The three other alleged witnesses and the psychologist didn’t appear. If Senator Feinstein had disclosed this allegation privately, the Senate could’ve gotten court approval to review all relevant medical records privately.

Graham is hypocritical in light of his stance on the Merrick Garland debacle, but his statements about the strength of the evidence and the dangerous precedent set by the handling of this are correct. The Republicans took a disgraceful approach to Garland. They tried to rush through Kavanaugh’s nomination. But the handling of this by Feinstein, Booker, and Hirono has been a disgraceful retaliation.

Ford apparently was never told by her lawyer that this could’ve been done privately in California, even though her lawyer was explicitly given that option. The week long delay in the hearing appears to have been designed to allow time to release the other allegations that are contradicted by all alleged eyewitnessees, including the recanted Rhode Island story that the media ran with, and Swetnick, who made a crazy allegation then refused to agree to interviews or name any witnesses she claims exist.

If this had been handled in July, the Senate already could’ve gotten a court order to allow the information from the alleged witnesses, therapist, and medical records to be reviewed privately. Since Kavanaugh’s calendar includes his high school social gatherings, the witnesses to those events could’ve been interviewed. It wouldn’t have come down to a public spectacle, which helps campaign fundraising but is a totally unreliable way of discerning truth.

However hypocritical it may be, Graham’s anger about this is genuine and justified. Based on Trump’s comments, I’ve always been worried he might create an Andrew Jackson-style crisis by ignoring a Supreme Court order. I’m now worried that this will have consequences for the judiciary’s legitimacy that are nearly as bad.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 28, 2018, 11:56:27 AM
ok actully heard linsey thing. He full of shit on the obstruction considering what he did with obama pick

And the whole complaint about the other lower judges who haven't been confirm is also really hypocritical

Also judge should be cross examine. And they probally should be an investigation into this. It be silly to have thing things..if Ford didn't testify. So it silly not to let people question judge as well. But they rushing it..and probally have the vote Friday

As for prescient...yea dems kind of fucked up way they did. They being somewhat puritan with the drinking.  the idea you HAVE to beleave the woman goes against innocent till proven guilty. So all that does set a bad precedent. But so is not having any investigation. I think if things were reverse...it no way they be cool with a dem nomination..that had 4 people excusing the person of rape..with them rushing this without an invesitgiation. so the precident is already preset.

And also if you think about how long other nominations took (not just Garland) this actully haven't been that long.  These things normally take a long time
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 28, 2018, 12:53:24 PM
A number of people have pointed out that Graham has gotten pissed off repeatedly at past confirmation hearings when he felt judges were subjected to unfair personal attacks. I think he’s absolutely genuine. Is it hypocritical that he’s pissed about personal attacks but was okay with the ridiculous blocking of Garland? Yes. But this sort of public, uncorroborated character assassination of a judge is actually a step worse than the handling of Garland.

If the Democrats had wanted to delay the hearing back in July by releasing this privately, that would’ve been a great idea. I honestly suspect that either the psychologist would’ve confirmed this was originally a memory about four attackers, or Kavanaugh would’ve dropped out, possibly leading to Trump nominating his other top pick who was less experienced and more socially conservative.

Public personal attacks like this should never happen to a federal judge. Has anyone heard of Samuel Kent? Unlike Kavanaugh, he faced corroborated allegations of sexual assault. They were handled by the proper investigative body, the Fifth Circuit’s judicial misconduct panel:

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability

He was then impeached and convicted. If there were evidence against Kavanaugh that is susceptible to investigation, it would be the duty of the DC Circuit to investigate. Not the FBI (which can only be told to investigate by Trump). Not the journalists writing the nonsensical clickbait articles about this.

Mark Judge should testify, though his testimony should be about this alleged event and others directly involving Kavanaugh. His cross-examination shouldn’t be a media circus about his self-described alcoholism or claims about him that don’t involve Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser should also testify about whether she truthfully stated that she never met Kavanaugh, or if she gave an incorrect answer due to alleged health issues, as Ford believes. The third alleged witness should also testify to confirm again his lack of memory of any such party. And be asked if he ever met Ford or Keyser. But all of this should’ve been handled in a non-public setting.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 28, 2018, 01:53:52 PM
Here's something else that no one seems to be really talking about. Did anyone else listen to Bret yesterday? Does that sound like someone who can be fair, does that sound like someone who can be deliberate.

He spouted out a conspiracy theory!

Just compare his fox news interview to yesterday. It just makes him look so bad.

This entire thing is a joke. Worse, Bill Cosby was finally sentenced and I thought, "Finally, we're moving somewhere." Now a man who may have committed sexual assault could be in the supreme court?

And my problem with Lindsey is he just found a way to make victims victims again. Blame them, bang the table, make the attackers the victims. That's evil. You're opening old wounds and hurting these people again.



Guess what,  you do that during a job interview and you're not getting hired.

And as for the investigation that was done--but the republican staff. Yeah, Feinstein is questionable...but this is like playing a football game where the opposing team's equipment staff and trainers are the refs.

Everything about this process has been a disgrace. And it'll be a disgrace the next time, and the next. Because no one wants to do the right thing, or fall on the sword. Look at Jeff Flake, he talks about doing the right thing--but he will always go against everything he's ever said. And then hide in an elevator when confronted.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on September 28, 2018, 01:55:13 PM
Whoa. Jeff Flake actually stood up for his principles.

I'll give him credit for that.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 28, 2018, 02:54:01 PM
A number of people have pointed out that Graham has gotten pissed off repeatedly at past confirmation hearings when he felt judges were subjected to unfair personal attacks. I think he’s absolutely genuine. Is it hypocritical that he’s pissed about personal attacks but was okay with the ridiculous blocking of Garland? Yes. But this sort of public, uncorroborated character assassination of a judge is actually a step worse than the handling of Garland.

If the Democrats had wanted to delay the hearing back in July by releasing this privately, that would’ve been a great idea. I honestly suspect that either the psychologist would’ve confirmed this was originally a memory about four attackers, or Kavanaugh would’ve dropped out, possibly leading to Trump nominating his other top pick who was less experienced and more socially conservative.

Public personal attacks like this should never happen to a federal judge. Has anyone heard of Samuel Kent? Unlike Kavanaugh, he faced corroborated allegations of sexual assault. They were handled by the proper investigative body, the Fifth Circuit’s judicial misconduct panel:

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability

He was then impeached and convicted. If there were evidence against Kavanaugh that is susceptible to investigation, it would be the duty of the DC Circuit to investigate. Not the FBI (which can only be told to investigate by Trump). Not the journalists writing the nonsensical clickbait articles about this.

Mark Judge should testify, though his testimony should be about this alleged event and others directly involving Kavanaugh. His cross-examination shouldn’t be a media circus about his self-described alcoholism or claims about him that don’t involve Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser should also testify about whether she truthfully stated that she never met Kavanaugh, or if she gave an incorrect answer due to alleged health issues, as Ford believes. The third alleged witness should also testify to confirm again his lack of memory of any such party. And be asked if he ever met Ford or Keyser. But all of this should’ve been handled in a non-public setting.

wouldnt say this worst then harland

with garland it was the republicans straight up not doing their job and ignoring the will of the people. a president gets 4 years

and when ask why their doing that..it was basicky fuck you thats why what you going to do about it bitch. the investigation shoukd be private but No investigation bad as well. now there rushing this
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 28, 2018, 03:02:25 PM
also if it wasnt public not sure how much of an investigatiob in would be when even with in the public eye their not doing it
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 28, 2018, 04:15:08 PM
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 28, 2018, 07:21:34 PM
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.

well cant they still review it anyway just not make it public

and dinr neccesarly disagree. i am saying if this wasnt in the public eye there might of not been much of an investigation.  since it be less pressure. hell might not be one now eve. with the pressure. dude mught of been confirmed already without an investigation
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: superlurker on September 28, 2018, 09:04:13 PM
Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 28, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.

well cant they still review it anyway just not make it public

and dinr neccesarly disagree. i am saying if this wasnt in the public eye there might of not been much of an investigation.  since it be less pressure. hell might not be one now eve. with the pressure. dude mught of been confirmed already without an investigation

Think about what you are saying. If Feinstein had told Republicans, do you really think they wouldn't have searched for anything that could be used against their nominee? Trump had other choices that could've quietly taken over. Or Feinstein could've handed it over the DC Circuit Court, which is the proper body for investigating judicial misconduct. I guarantee you they do not need public "pressure" to investigate serious claims of crimes.  Again, look up Samuel Kent.

Feinstein hand-picked Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, who is a partisan political actor. Katz immediately paid for a polygraph test for Ford with no control questions. Katz refused to let the Senators see Ford's therapist notes, yet somehow they were sent to the Washington Post. Ford didn't know or didn't remember how they got to the Post. Katz bought an extra week of time between now and the midterms by citing Ford's alleged fear of flying, while apparently failing to tell Ford that the Senators had offered to do the interview in private in California. At one point, Katz advanced the amazing request that the accused testify first, then the accuser responds without rebuttal.

These were clearly political games. I don't buy the idea that Feinstein's timing just coincidentally increased the chances that Democrats might be able to pull a Merrick Garland on the Republicans. By doing it with an issue this serious, they have dragged Kavanaugh and Ford's families through the mud in the most public way possible. And they're using it as a fundraiser.

On the medical records, yes they should be reviewed. If Mark Judge's medical records say Kavanaugh assaulted someone, that would be pretty compelling. If Ford's therapists notes really say four attackers, that's also pretty strong. Since Ford says the therapist must've written it down wrong, the therapist should be questioned. Here's an expert's take:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-very-very-certain-wrong-202229531.html

"Q: Is it possible that both witnesses are sincere?

A: "Absolutely. Certainly she came across as very credible and sympathetic, with most people wanting to believe her, and she seems to definitely believe what she is saying.

"He came across very angry and belligerent, and that is to be expected by someone who is convinced that he is being falsely accused.

"If he did do this, and he has no memory of it because it was so long ago, because maybe he was drinking more than usual and he forgot about that, he could honestly believe his denials."

- False memory -

Q: How commonly can a person misremember details of a real event?

A: "That would be very common. When you have an experience, especially a very upsetting experience... you often remember the core of the event -- you know it was an airplane crash and not a huge fire, and you can remember certain core details, but often many of the peripheral details will suffer.

"And then memory changes over the course of retelling with different audiences -- with the exposure to new information, other details can change.

"We have done studies where we show people an accident -- where a car goes through a yield sign and we suggest later it was a stop sign -- and many people will tell us they remember seeing a stop sign.

"Changing the details of an actual memory is a relatively easy thing to do. And it can happen spontaneously."

- 'Very, very certain, and wrong' -

Q: Does it make a difference if someone says they are 100 percent sure?

A: "Sometimes people are very, very certain and wrong. In DNA exonerations, you will find many instances where people start out being uncertain... they'll look at some photos and say, 'Well, that one looks the closest, I guess.'

"But by the time they get to trial, they've become vastly more certain, and therefore more persuasive.

"So you see in these cases how someone who is now very certain, was once not so certain. In those cases, we need to ask what made them become so certain
."
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 28, 2018, 11:14:08 PM
It is unreasonable to judge how someone should react emotionally when faced with an allegation of a serious felony they believe they did not commit. That is not a reasonable criticism. Rhetorically connecting Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby, a convicted felon who admitted using qualludes and had plenty of corroborating evidence against him, is also not reasonable.

Kavanaugh should not have mentioned the political party of certain senators, but his summary of their efforts is based on public statements by the senators and their staffers. Booker literally called him evil months ago. Hirono is shamelessly using this as a fundraiser. His emotional response to this is really not relevant.

Rock, a public investigation can’t reveal the circumstances of the therapist session or the contents of the notes. Those are protected medical records. So are the records of Leland Keyser, who Ford suggests is misremembering due to health issues. Mark Judge’s alcoholism is also a medical issue. Questions about that may need to be confidential. In appropriate circumstances where the medical records are directly at issue, a court can compel the review of those records under seal. All of this information should be available to senators or the DC Circuit, but much of it isn’t going to be public.

well cant they still review it anyway just not make it public

and dinr neccesarly disagree. i am saying if this wasnt in the public eye there might of not been much of an investigation.  since it be less pressure. hell might not be one now eve. with the pressure. dude mught of been confirmed already without an investigation

Think about what you are saying. If Feinstein had told Republicans, do you really think they wouldn't have searched for anything that could be used against their nominee? Trump had other choices that could've quietly taken over. Or Feinstein could've handed it over the DC Circuit Court, which is the proper body for investigating judicial misconduct. I guarantee you they do not need public "pressure" to investigate serious claims of crimes.  Again, look up Samuel Kent.

Feinstein hand-picked Ford's lawyer, Debra Katz, who is a partisan political actor. Katz immediately paid for a polygraph test for Ford with no control questions. Katz refused to let the Senators see Ford's therapist notes, yet somehow they were sent to the Washington Post. Ford didn't know or didn't remember how they got to the Post. Katz bought an extra week of time between now and the midterms by citing Ford's alleged fear of flying, while apparently failing to tell Ford that the Senators had offered to do the interview in private in California. At one point, Katz advanced the amazing request that the accused testify first, then the accuser responds without rebuttal.

These were clearly political games. I don't buy the idea that Feinstein's timing just coincidentally increased the chances that Democrats might be able to pull a Merrick Garland on the Republicans. By doing it with an issue this serious, they have dragged Kavanaugh and Ford's families through the mud in the most public way possible. And they're using it as a fundraiser.

On the medical records, yes they should be reviewed. If Mark Judge's medical records say Kavanaugh assaulted someone, that would be pretty compelling. If Ford's therapists notes really say four attackers, that's also pretty strong. Since Ford says the therapist must've written it down wrong, the therapist should be questioned. Here's an expert's take:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-very-very-certain-wrong-202229531.html

"Q: Is it possible that both witnesses are sincere?

A: "Absolutely. Certainly she came across as very credible and sympathetic, with most people wanting to believe her, and she seems to definitely believe what she is saying.

"He came across very angry and belligerent, and that is to be expected by someone who is convinced that he is being falsely accused.

"If he did do this, and he has no memory of it because it was so long ago, because maybe he was drinking more than usual and he forgot about that, he could honestly believe his denials."

- False memory -

Q: How commonly can a person misremember details of a real event?

A: "That would be very common. When you have an experience, especially a very upsetting experience... you often remember the core of the event -- you know it was an airplane crash and not a huge fire, and you can remember certain core details, but often many of the peripheral details will suffer.

"And then memory changes over the course of retelling with different audiences -- with the exposure to new information, other details can change.

"We have done studies where we show people an accident -- where a car goes through a yield sign and we suggest later it was a stop sign -- and many people will tell us they remember seeing a stop sign.

"Changing the details of an actual memory is a relatively easy thing to do. And it can happen spontaneously."

- 'Very, very certain, and wrong' -

Q: Does it make a difference if someone says they are 100 percent sure?

A: "Sometimes people are very, very certain and wrong. In DNA exonerations, you will find many instances where people start out being uncertain... they'll look at some photos and say, 'Well, that one looks the closest, I guess.'

"But by the time they get to trial, they've become vastly more certain, and therefore more persuasive.

"So you see in these cases how someone who is now very certain, was once not so certain. In those cases, we need to ask what made them become so certain
."

think if the if Feinstein told the republicans they would of half ass it and rush it before anything could be used against him
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 29, 2018, 02:49:04 PM
Rock, if there were probable cause that Kavanaugh attempted to rape someone, it wouldn't magically disappear because he's on the Supreme Court. You believe all the Senators would hatch an evil scheme to sweep a violent crime under the rug when they had multiple other candidates who are even more conservative? I find that as plausible as the theory that the Clintons secretly murder people.

Thanks to Feinstein's creation of a public spectacle, the media has ran with a Yale allegation where the accuser told others she wasn't sure it was Kavanaugh and every alleged eyewitness contradicted the claim. Then Avenatti threw into the mix a story about gang rapes from someone with a very colorful personal and legal history.

Kavanaugh's ex-girlfriend, a federal judge, just said the anonymous accusation that he assaulted her in 1998 was a lie:

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/09/27/d-c-federal-judge-denies-anonymous-tip-alleging-kavanaugh-abuse/?slreturn=20180829144501

And the man behind the anonymous Rhode Island rape allegation has recanted his story:

https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/jeffrey-catalan-newport-rhode-island-Kavanaugh/

And now USA Today has implied Kavanaugh is a pedophile. This sort of filth is why this should've been handled privately months ago. It was obvious that by airing the Ford accusation publicly at the last minute, a ton of politically-motivated accusations would follow. For that matter, we also had the two men falsely claiming they were the ones behind the "disputed incident."

Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

Graham seems to think dirty procedural tricks are acceptable if they get the job done, no matter how egregious. He either doesn't realize or doesn't care about the corrosive effect it has on having any logical debate or non-ideological discussion of issues in the future. I think this is part of what's made the Republican party become totally insane on economic and environmental issues.

Nevertheless, he's consistently gotten mad about personal attacks on judicial candidates. That seems to be a core principle for him.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

If all we had was the Senate testimony, I'd be about 50/50 on what happened. But unless Mark Judge has some testimony beyond "yes, I was an alcoholic" and "no, I don't remember anything," I think the original Washington Post story tips the scales of probability in favor of this being an inaccurately reconstructed memory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c03a899e61f

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."
 
"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions. . ."

"Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life."

There were multiple psychotherapy sessions. The notes saying it was four attackers seem to have come from the first session. Ford believes she had a 100% accurate flashbulb memory of the attack. The peripheral details faded, but she absolutely remembered her two attackers. There's evidence for flashbulb memories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

The problem is that the number of attackers isn't a peripheral detail. It's a core event. If the psychologist really heard her say there were four assailants at the first therapy session, this sounds more like an "edited" memory that became focused and more certain during multiple therapy sessions. Sessions that took place the same year in which Kavanaugh, a famous person with who lived somewhere in the area, was placed on Romney's short list. Unless I see more, I find that explanation more plausible than the idea the psychologist wrote it down wrong, Leland Keyser suddenly forgot that she ever met Kavanaugh due to health problems, and it's a coincidence that this was first mentioned during therapy sessions that coincided with Romney's nod to Kavanaugh.

The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

I completely agree with you on this. It wouldn't be uncalled for to point out the absurdity of senators calling him evil or a threat to the planet (before any of these stories surfaced). But he made a major mistake in terms of judicial legitimacy by using words like "Democrats," "the left," and the "Clintons." Maybe in the moment, he mistakenly thought naming an abstract group would've been better than calling out the Senators by name. I think that even if he'd specifically called out Senators by name, that would've been far preferable to naming them in the abstract with partisan labels.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on September 29, 2018, 03:23:57 PM
Rock, if there were probable cause that Kavanaugh attempted to rape someone, it wouldn't magically disappear because he's on the Supreme Court. You believe all the Senators would hatch an evil scheme to sweep a violent crime under the rug when they had multiple other candidates who are even more conservative? I find that as plausible as the theory that the Clintons secretly murder people. Thanks to Feinstein's creation of a public spectacle, the USA Today just implied that Kavanugh is a pedophile.

Looking at the overall context and circumstances, Graham's eruption definitely isn't unreasonable. But there's so many other things that are not as they should be about this case I find it hard to sympathize much, even if the character assassination here is probably the lowest blow in the process. Graham wasn't making public outbursts about the way document releases related to Kavanaugh's previous jobs were handled, nor was he making any fuss about how rushed the whole thing is.

Graham seems to think dirty procedural tricks are acceptable if they get the job done, no matter how egregious. He either doesn't realize or doesn't care about the corrosive effect it has on having any logical debate or non-ideological discussion of issues in the future. I think this is part of what's made the Republican party become totally insane on economic and environmental issues.

Nevertheless, he's consistently gotten mad about personal attacks on judicial candidates. That seems to be a core principle for him.

I find it hard to know whether to believe Kavanaugh or Ford. The other accusers seem like opportunists, though. And even if what Ford claims happened, I'm not necessarily sure whether it would count as disqualifying him. That would only be if he's lying about it (as opposed to not remembering). Regardless, the whole story will permanently stain his reputation and diminish his stature.

I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

If all we had was the Senate testimony, I'd be about 50/50 on what happened. But unless Mark Judge has some testimony beyond "yes, I was an alcoholic" and "no, I don't remember anything," I think the original Washington Post story tips the scales of probability in favor of this being an inaccurately reconstructed memory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c03a899e61f

"The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room."
 
"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions. . ."

"Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life."

There were multiple psychotherapy sessions. The notes saying it was four attackers seem to have come from the first session. Ford believes she had a 100% accurate flashbulb memory of the attack. The peripheral details faded, but she absolutely remembered her two attackers. There's evidence for flashbulb memories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbulb_memory

The problem is that the number of attackers isn't a peripheral detail. It's a core event. If the psychologist really heard her say there were four assailants at the first therapy session, this sounds more like an "edited" memory that became focused and more certain during multiple therapy sessions. Sessions that took place the same year in which Kavanaugh, a famous person with who lived somewhere in the area, was placed on Romney's short list. Unless I see more, I find that explanation more plausible than the idea the psychologist wrote it down wrong, Leland Keyser suddenly forgot that she ever met Kavanaugh due to health problems, and it's a coincidence that this was first mentioned during therapy sessions that coincided with Romney's nod to Kavanaugh.

The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

Worse is that he made some nakedly partisan attacks and statements which basically shit all over his own prior ritualistic pretense at impartiality. The way he defended himself and attacked the Democrats will undermine his position in the long run if he does get on the Supreme Court. Any politically fraught decision he's involved in will lack legitimacy for it. People will drag those quotes out every time. And that weakens the whole court, not just an individual Justice.

I completely agree with you on this. It wouldn't be uncalled for to point out the absurdity of senators calling him evil or a threat to the planet (before any of these stories surfaced). But he made a major mistake in terms of judicial legitimacy by using words like "Democrats," "the left," and the "Clintons." Maybe in the moment, he mistakenly thought naming an abstract group would've been better than calling out the Senators by name. I think that even if he'd specifically called out Senators by name, that would've been far preferable to naming them in the abstract with partisan labels.

dont think it involves a huge conspiracy . uf there a tape of him raping people yea they cant sweep thst under the rug. nor does that involve every senator agreeing.  and yes there othere conservative senators but they want it befor the midterm

but if it a few he said he saids (which a lot if these case are)thay actully needs an investigation to see if their not bs can see them half assing that and the public losing interest . public attention dpan can be shockly short. a kenndy drown a chick and he still beloved in a lot of places

ask yourself would flake ask for a probe if it wasnt this public attention. i mean there were ready to straight up not have an investigation even with the public outcry. an even then the investigation going to be a week. thats it. how us that not half assing it. do you think if he confirm there be any more looking into these claims. if the answer no how us that not being swept under the rug

two thing can be true, the dems playing politics but also there shoukd be an investigation and this shouldnt be rushed

i.meqn hell the president was accuse of 14 rapes breaking the emmolyments clause left and right and not much imvestigation there
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: superlurker on September 29, 2018, 04:58:38 PM
I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

To me, that event has multiple elements to it. If it happened, he was inebriated, and people have occasionally been known to do things they wouldn't otherwise while drunk. Of course, it may also be that the actions he took points to personality traits he's otherwise keeping in check. However, he was also 17 years old.

A 17-year old male brain still isn't fully developed, especially when it comes to some of the traits pertaining to doing stupid shit and taking dumb risks. In that regard, the brain isn't fully developed until much later, around 25 years of age. Meanwhile, the legal system has chosen some arbitrary cutoff points (like 18 years of age for some things, or 21 years of age for other things). What I'm getting at is that there should be some rethinking about how criminal justice in particular applies to young people. There is something to the "boys will be boys" line that some Republicans have trotted out, but I don't see them lining up to take that reasoning to its next logical step.

When it comes to anyone that does not belong to Kavanaugh's particular and privileged group, of course, there are no boys -- only criminal adults that are completely rational in their decision-making and ability to assess consequences, and hence responsible for their actions once some specific age is reached.

Kavanaugh today is likely a very different person than he was then. If he hasn't exhibited any similar behavior since (of which some are accusing him, but many of those accusations seem opportunistic), I don't think that should weigh decisively against him, if his judgement today is otherwise sound. He's not been nominated to be a saint. However, at this point, the picture as a whole makes him a very weak candidate overall.

Quote
The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

It doesn't even take outside influence. People make up their own false memories anyway. In this case, that swings both ways -- some of the yearbook references and some prior references from other sources seems to paint a very different picture of Kavanaugh than he did himself. Ford seems sincere, but as you note, her story has apparently changed over time, though it could also be true that the therapist's note-taking was sub-standard.

And I agree that the investigation is likely to lead to little being changed. It would have to take some pretty heavy evidence to sway the other side that one side or the other is correct, and that's just not likely to be found here. Even if all the witnesses suddenly swing heavily one way, that can be waved off as a conspiracy to pressure them somehow. I would even consider as possible a scenario where Kavanaugh is confirmed, only to later be impeached by a Democratic Congress once they find some appropriate nail to drive in.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Rufio on September 30, 2018, 04:50:57 PM
I disagree on whether it would be disqualifying if true. It would be. Being a "sloppy drunk" or getting into immature frat boy shenanigans wouldn't be, but an attempt to forcefully remove someone's clothes while covering their face would be. Maybe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, get a second chance and become a doctor or accountant. I think being a federal judge is different. They're appointed for life and have monarch-like powers. If the preponderance of the evidence showed that Kavanaugh was guilty of any violent sex crime, he shouldn't be on the DC Circuit.

To me, that event has multiple elements to it. If it happened, he was inebriated, and people have occasionally been known to do things they wouldn't otherwise while drunk. Of course, it may also be that the actions he took points to personality traits he's otherwise keeping in check. However, he was also 17 years old.

A 17-year old male brain still isn't fully developed, especially when it comes to some of the traits pertaining to doing stupid shit and taking dumb risks. In that regard, the brain isn't fully developed until much later, around 25 years of age. Meanwhile, the legal system has chosen some arbitrary cutoff points (like 18 years of age for some things, or 21 years of age for other things). What I'm getting at is that there should be some rethinking about how criminal justice in particular applies to young people. There is something to the "boys will be boys" line that some Republicans have trotted out, but I don't see them lining up to take that reasoning to its next logical step.

When it comes to anyone that does not belong to Kavanaugh's particular and privileged group, of course, there are no boys -- only criminal adults that are completely rational in their decision-making and ability to assess consequences, and hence responsible for their actions once some specific age is reached.

Kavanaugh today is likely a very different person than he was then. If he hasn't exhibited any similar behavior since (of which some are accusing him, but many of those accusations seem opportunistic), I don't think that should weigh decisively against him, if his judgement today is otherwise sound. He's not been nominated to be a saint. However, at this point, the picture as a whole makes him a very weak candidate overall.

Quote
The other issue in the WaPo story is the word "psychotherapy." Some psychotherapy techniques are apparently legitimate, but some are known to implant false memories. I think any serious search for the truth would need to get to the unredacted notes and interview the psychologist.

I fear that's not going to happen because Debra Katz will refuse to release the records and the FBI isn't going to ask a court to compel them. I expect they're just going to interview Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friends present at the July 1 calendar entry, and possibly Leland Keyser. Almost no new information will come out and this will bitterly divide the country for years.

It doesn't even take outside influence. People make up their own false memories anyway. In this case, that swings both ways -- some of the yearbook references and some prior references from other sources seems to paint a very different picture of Kavanaugh than he did himself. Ford seems sincere, but as you note, her story has apparently changed over time, though it could also be true that the therapist's note-taking was sub-standard.

And I agree that the investigation is likely to lead to little being changed. It would have to take some pretty heavy evidence to sway the other side that one side or the other is correct, and that's just not likely to be found here. Even if all the witnesses suddenly swing heavily one way, that can be waved off as a conspiracy to pressure them somehow. I would even consider as possible a scenario where Kavanaugh is confirmed, only to later be impeached by a Democratic Congress once they find some appropriate nail to drive in.

I agree with you on the science of brain development. My perspective is more about preserving the prestige of federal judges. There’s a bit of a mythical aura to the job. Like the English monarchy, part of the job involves maintaining that aura. For that reason, I do think Kavanaugh should apologize for his partisan comments, just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for her comments about Trump.

I don’t want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, either. My stance is based on the ideological shift it would bring and his time as a partisan actor on the Ken Starr team. But I do share Lindsey Graham’s concern that voting against him now will be seen as a “guilty” verdict on charges that, at this moment, fall way short of a preponderance of the evidence standard in a civil court.

In terms of his socioeconomic status, you’re right about the Republican double standard. Dennis Prager probably wouldn’t be nearly as generous to someone from a poor urban community as he is to Kavanaugh. The Republican stance on crime and policing overall has been really bad, especially Trump’s obsession with reversing Obama policies that just reflected common sense. On the other hand, I’ve been seeing left-leaning commentators suggest Kavanaugh is more likely to be a rapist because of his “entitled” and “privileged” upbringing, so his anger should be viewed through that lens. That’s a double standard of a different variety.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Thanos6 on October 02, 2018, 11:31:36 PM
And now Graham is saying that if Kavanaugh gets voted down, he should just be renominated.

http://www.wistv.com/2018/10/02/graham-trump-re-nominate-kavanaugh-if-vote-fails/
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on October 03, 2018, 02:32:45 AM
So...John McCain was Lindsey's moral compass? I mean, yeah, he's been bad--but now we're in a new territory of messed up.
r
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on November 03, 2018, 09:21:38 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/us/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-midterms.html#commentsContainer

I do not understand republicans. At all. Not the politicians. Just regular folk. I just don't...understand what logic they use.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: MTL76 on November 03, 2018, 11:13:00 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/us/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-midterms.html#commentsContainer

I do not understand republicans. At all. Not the politicians. Just regular folk. I just don't...understand what logic they use.

That’s a good summation of why our country seems so divided.

Also, regarding the article, it's funny that the New York Times praises bipartisanship (by this, I mean giving concessions to the majority party) in Republicans, but never seems to do so in Democrats. Similarly, Republicans that tend to vote along party lines are presented as automatons, but Democrats who do so aren't.
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Propeus The Fallen on November 04, 2018, 08:56:01 AM
Well, a good number of Republicans say "Trump doing (insert whatever) bad or wrong" and then they vote and support him.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/414746-saturday-night-live-mocks-fox-news-coverage-of-caravan

And this. This is exactly what i mean. It's like republicans live in this horrible evil Wonderland . There's no logic, just fear and make believe. It's like that tunnel in Willy Wonka...only it's evil and it's not the tunnel--it's the entire frickin' factory!
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: MTL76 on November 04, 2018, 09:16:33 AM
“It’s ridiculous to call it a caravan!” OK, what would you like to call this organized procession of thousands of people marching en masse towards our border?

“They won’t get here for two months!” Ok, shouldn’t we have a plan in place for what to do when they do get here? Are we not supposed to think of things beyond today?

“It has no bearing on the upcoming election!” If the two main parties have very different plans on what to do in two months, how is that not something to consider?
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: therock on November 04, 2018, 12:36:03 PM
Listen I have no issue with calling them a caravan

But the whole it secret muslims extremnist sneaking in there  (something he basicly admit he pulled out of his ass) who are bringing smallpox (a disease that I think wiped out).  Then idea they runnign over when they going through a legal process that refugees go through. Then the whole bring 15,000 troops..and saying treats rock like rifles..may lead to a horrible incident. All this is during the election to stoke his base. He actully making policy to stoke a hatefull part of his base. Because is tax cuts for the rich and lying about wanting to cover pre existing conditions. Then he add he can take away birth right citenship with an executive order  (no you fucking cant). That just feeding the more extrem side. Left has a wild base to. But dont know if the dems been giving them that amount of  and this kind of red meat. In fact their pretty devided. We have a birther as president. We dont have say a Truther as the opposition.

As for asking for compromise. during Obama people were doing report "If only Obama would have a beer or play golf with the republicans surely they like him". That ask of all president. Trump just the one that  kind of openly saying FUCK that. He openly cheering on body slamming a reporter. Imagine if the other side did that.  The shit storm That would happen. or if they said fox new the enemy of the people and he want to take their licence away. Imagine if Fox was shit on after they got a bomb threat

This not just finding reason to shit on trump. When a poster here cheered on punching a nazi a lot of people said that wa wrong. And that a post posting a board about Superhero fights and pics of chicks with Dicks. Not the fucking president of the united States. All for compromise. But it times where I dont know what the fuck this guy wants

Like the imigrantion bill. People kept saying the dems have to compromise and give money for that wall including the so called liberlal media. They did, gave him money...everyone seem cool with a Bill. Because they gave in a lot of Trump demands...while gettign heat from the left base. And what happen...still turn down the bill and called Dems extreme.  People were shocked because they didnt know what the dude wanted

Same when Boehner was a speaker. Lot of times he couldnt get his own people to work, because no Bill was good enough if it had a single bit of compromise

All for compromise. But it has to work both ways at some point. We shouldnt make fun of the south so much. But maybe also..the people running shouldn't shit on the north so much with talking about new York values in a negative and saying the rural state the REAL america. shit they been doing since I was aware of politics.. Dems need to reach Rural white...some of the maga hat wearing crowd. Even reaching out to brietbert reader. But assure you there no where in the republicans establismhement are they saying "yea those college kids with the Che T-shirts. And the people who reading those jezebell article about why cant superman be played by a transeuxal muslim, We really need to reach out to them"
Title: Re: Lindsey Graham...
Post by: Thanos6 on November 04, 2018, 05:31:54 PM
Quote from: therock
We shouldnt make fun of the south so much.

No, the South deserves it. And I say that as someone who was born here and has lived here my whole life.