Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

[yuna628 9,527]

21 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

What about Cory Booker?

Whatabout whatabout? I'm all for cleaning house of those who don't belong there.

13 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Did bad at a job interview? How would you respond if being falsely accused?  This was a very convenient accusation by Dr. Ford, it brought out the MeToo crowd to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to support her, and it would be almost impossible to disprove her accusation (I.e. no blowback her way legally).  We always hear that sexual predators do not changes their stripes, so if Kavanaugh was such a sexual deviant in high school, where are all the accusations that are much more current?  Call it conspiracy theory thinking, but I would not put anything past the Democrats that already said they were against Kavanaugh before they even talked to him.

I've talked about it again and again... there is something about this guy that simply does not sit right with me. How he carries himself, his tone, his deflection. IF there is any doubt in any direction he simply should have had the decency to withdraw. I'm sorry that he's butthurt and feels entitled to the position, but he is not entitled to the position. My husband asked me what would I do if he was falsely accused, I said I would be supportive of him, but I also know that he would be honorable enough to withdraw and not put his family and the country through the BS. He agreed. He watched how Kavanaugh behaved very closely and found it downright odd. He agreed that it did not matter if the accusation was provably true or not - he simply does not have the temperament. Beyond that, he grew concerned about his behavior at his current post. I remember quite clearly the Thomas-Hill hearings; Thomas was pretty angry but I never recall his temperament behaving like that, nor do I recall him behaving entitled as such.

11 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I think alot of the "unspoken rules" of politics were thrown out during this confirmation and that is why we, all of us, are where we are today.

 

In previous hearings, accusations were released early to  get the candidate to deny accusations but still politely withdraw. In this hearing Feinstein screwed up and introduced it in the 11th hour which has created a game of brinksmanship. At this stage you have one side trying to hold a line that says if there is any shade of doubt about a candidate, they should not be confirmed against another side that sees this as a situation where if any doubt can be acquired in the 11th hour it automatically discredits the nominee which isn't seen as a fair process.

 

Basically....Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, and that was the goal of the democrats. They played their hand wrong though by waiting so long putting the GOP up against the wall, so Kavanaugh can not withdraw under these circumstances.

 

Its a lose / lose scenario now. If he is confirmed, it will look like a slap in the face to women who have been assaulted. If he isn't confirmed, the future playbook will be to find any accusations...hold on to them, and then tank the process in the final day or two before a vote. 

I did not hear anything in Ms Ford's testimony that implied she did anything last minute, but certainly the accusations could have been handled better. We need to investigate what wrangling went on there. Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, but even still, the WH should have pulled the nomination, saved face and picked someone better. There's a couple women in the mix, perhaps even more staunchly conservative that would have made everyone happy on the R side. Mitch did not even want Kavanaugh to begin with.

 

Now that we've reached this ridiculous point he will either be confirmed and then eventually impeached (you know that's going to come eventually). Or all the blustering and posturing by Mitch and co is simply political theater. They don't really like the guy in the first place but they need to save face, so they'll act like toddlers, and when the nomination fails they'll blame the D's, the few R holdouts that never liked him to begin with, and end up looking completely dysfunctional.

[Sonea 138]

1 hour ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I was assaulted in 2010. I can’t remember what he looks like, I don’t know his name, I don’t even know why I was on that crowded bus. All I know is he assaulted me for what felt like an hour but was really just 5 minutes... and I remember that feeling of being violated.

 

Since then, I’ve had a fear of being in crowds, but if you wanna look at my history, you can’t say I’ve avoided crowds entirely. I also don’t ride public transportation if I could, but I still ride them out of necessity.

 

By the logic presented by most people trying to find so-called “holes”, I’m lying about my assault because I don’t panic when I’m in a crowd or when I’m on public transportation.

 

Less than 5% of people that report sexual violence are false claims. That’s been consistent in a lot of national and state surveys.

 

With that statistic, that means there’s a 95% chance that Judge Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault.

 

 

 

I have a question regarding the 5% claim. Those are proven false accusation correct? What is the percentage of proven accurate? That will tell you a more accurate percentage overall. For instance, if the conviction rate is 80% then the breakdown is 5/15/80 where in 15% of accusation are not proven either way. Likewise if there is a conviction rate of 10% it would be 5/85/10.

[lierre 224]

45 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So it is ok to destroy someone for political purposes?  I guess presumed innocence is a thing of the past.  And yes, even though this is not a court of law, he, Kavanaugh, is still entitled to presumed innocence.

 

And Dr Blasey Ford is not allowed such liberty? Is “presumed innocence” a sole right of people in power?

 

You’d be hard-pressed to find a woman or man who would come forward with a sexual assault allegation just because. Statistics already refute that myth.

[Dashinka 23,204]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Whatabout whatabout? I'm all for cleaning house of those who don't belong there.

I've talked about it again and again... there is something about this guy that simply does not sit right with me. How he carries himself, his tone, his deflection. IF there is any doubt in any direction he simply should have had the decency to withdraw. I'm sorry that he's butthurt and feels entitled to the position, but he is not entitled to the position. My husband asked me what would I do if he was falsely accused, I said I would be supportive of him, but I also know that he would be honorable enough to withdraw and not put his family and the country through the BS. He agreed. He watched how Kavanaugh behaved very closely and found it downright odd. He agreed that it did not matter if the accusation was provably true or not - he simply does not have the temperament. Beyond that, he grew concerned about his behavior at his current post. I remember quite clearly the Thomas-Hill hearings; Thomas was pretty angry but I never recall his temperament behaving like that, nor do I recall him behaving entitled as such.

I did not hear anything in Ms Ford's testimony that implied she did anything last minute, but certainly the accusations could have been handled better. We need to investigate what wrangling went on there. Kavanaugh should have withdrawn, but even still, the WH should have pulled the nomination, saved face and picked someone better. There's a couple women in the mix, perhaps even more staunchly conservative that would have made everyone happy on the R side. Mitch did not even want Kavanaugh to begin with.

 

Now that we've reached this ridiculous point he will either be confirmed and then eventually impeached (you know that's going to come eventually). Or all the blustering and posturing by Mitch and co is simply political theater. They don't really like the guy in the first place but they need to save face, so they'll act like toddlers, and when the nomination fails they'll blame the D's, the few R holdouts that never liked him to begin with, and end up looking completely dysfunctional.

So being falsely accused of something is butthurt now?  Yes, you have covered it, much like Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrats, you don’t like the guy for whatever reason regardless of his accomplishments.  I don’t know that he will be impreached, so not really sure how you can say that.  Like I mentioned, the accusations are so vague, so old and lacking any corroboration, how would the House ever prove he lied?  I know, we should all be sympathetic to the women here and the heck with the accused (he must be guilty and is not entitled to defend himself) as there may be women in our lives that may go through something like this, but I contend, what about the men and boys in our lives.  You said you would tell your husband to essentially file no contest f he was falsely accused, what if this meant the end to his career and reputation, what if it meant constantly being questioned by the other women in his life.  I know I would fight back, and with this situation where politics are clearly playing a role, I am all for throwing it back in the face of these Democrats.  If there is one thing I like about Trump is that he is teaching the GOP to not simply take the Democrat tactics and remain silent.  That will be a good thing in the long run.

[lierre 224]

3 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I have a question regarding the 5% claim. Those are proven false accusation correct? What is the percentage of proven accurate? That will tell you a more accurate percentage overall. For instance, if the conviction rate is 80% then the breakdown is 5/15/80 where in 15% of accusation are not proven either way. Likewise if there is a conviction rate of 10% it would be 5/85/10.

 

I presume you don’t have much knowledge of the justice system and government statistics. A criminal convinction does not mean it’s unsubstantiated.

 

And sexual violence is severely under reported and even more so, severely under reported to law enforcement.

[Dashinka 23,204]

3 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

And Dr Blasey Ford is not allowed such liberty? Is “presumed innocence” a sole right of people in power?

 

You’d be hard-pressed to find a woman or man who would come forward with a sexual assault allegation just because. Statistics already refute that myth.

Dr. Ford is the accuser, the burden of proof is on her.  If she truly wanted justice, she should have contacted the authorities in Maryland even now, but instead we get a political circus orchestrated by the Democrats.  You don’t think the Democrats are able to sink to the level of false accusations?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I presume you don’t have much knowledge of the justice system and government statistics. A criminal convinction does not mean it’s unsubstantiated.

 

And sexual violence is severely under reported and even more so, severely under reported to law enforcement.

Not sure what you are trying to say but , In fact it usually means the opposite. BTW no n in conviction . I know its silly to point out grammar errors I am just ocd about it. Sorry in advance. 

[lierre 224]

32 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

If he isn't appointed, it will be a slap in the face to anyone falsely accused. If the worse thing he has ever done in his life is get drunk at a party as a tenager and push another drunk teneager onto a bed, then he has lead a pretty tame life.

 

Pushing a “drunk teenager” onto a bed without consent is sexual violence. FYI.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/definitions.html

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Dr. Ford is the accuser, the burden of proof is on her.  If she truly wanted justice, she should have contacted the authorities in Maryland even now, but instead we get a political circus orchestrated by the Democrats.  You don’t think the Democrats are able to sink to the level of false accusations?

Honestly does anyone really have the guts to say... 2 teenagers got drunk at a party at one pushed the other one on the bed and got on top of her. I doubt 37 years ago the anyone would have raised an eyebrow, except for the underage drinking. Hardly sexual assault. 

[lierre 224]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Dr. Ford is the accuser, the burden of proof is on her.  If she truly wanted justice, she should have contacted the authorities in Maryland even now, but instead we get a political circus orchestrated by the Democrats.  You don’t think the Democrats are able to sink to the level of false accusations?

 

That begs the question.

 

The real question is if it would benefit the US Supreme Court to have a Justice that could have groped and sexually assaulted several women in his life.

[lierre 224]

5 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Not sure what you are trying to say but , In fact it usually means the opposite. BTW no n in conviction . I know its silly to point out grammar errors I am just ocd about it. Sorry in advance. 

 

Look up substantiation, conviction, and criminal justice system. And sexual violence myths while you’re at it. 😊

 

 

[Dashinka 23,204]

12 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

That begs the question.

 

The real question is if it would benefit the US Supreme Court to have a Justice that could have groped and sexually assaulted several women in his life.

The real question is will we allow the Democrats to ruin this for women that are truly victims of sexual attack.

[Dashinka 23,204]

16 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Honestly does anyone really have the guts to say... 2 teenagers got drunk at a party at one pushed the other one on the bed and got on top of her. I doubt 37 years ago the anyone would have raised an eyebrow, except for the underage drinking. Hardly sexual assault. 

But Kavanaugh appears to be a constructionist judge (i.e. conservative) so he deserves total destruction.

[Sonea 138]

52 minutes ago, ivyanddan said:

 

I presume you don’t have much knowledge of the justice system and government statistics. A criminal convinction does not mean it’s unsubstantiated.

 

And sexual violence is severely under reported and even more so, severely under reported to law enforcement.

Perhaps you misunderstood my question. I'll try again. You have an accusation that is made public. How is it determined if its false with regards to that statistic? I assume its determined through criminal proceedings correct?

 

By the way, I checked the conviction rate and it appears to be about 3%. So that means a total of 92% of all women that come forward are in limbo between false and true in the criminal court system. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Sonea

[yuna628 9,527]

41 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So being falsely accused of something is butthurt now?  Yes, you have covered it, much like Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrats, you don’t like the guy for whatever reason regardless of his accomplishments.  I don’t know that he will be impreached, so not really sure how you can say that.  Like I mentioned, the accusations are so vague, so old and lacking any corroboration, how would the House ever prove he lied?  I know, we should all be sympathetic to the women here and the heck with the accused (he must be guilty and is not entitled to defend himself) as there may be women in our lives that may go through something like this, but I contend, what about the men and boys in our lives.  You said you would tell your husband to essentially file no contest f he was falsely accused, what if this meant the end to his career and reputation, what if it meant constantly being questioned by the other women in his life.  I know I would fight back, and with this situation where politics are clearly playing a role, I am all for throwing it back in the face of these Democrats.  If there is one thing I like about Trump is that he is teaching the GOP to not simply take the Democrat tactics and remain silent.  That will be a good thing in the long run.

You don't think the Democrats once in power might try to impeach him? I wouldn't put that past them at all actually.

 

And indeed, how would they prove he or she lied. They cannot, but I would say there does seem to be a pattern of his behavior during that time that should give any person claiming to be moral quite a pause. My husband posed the question if he was in the same position as Kavanaugh (nominated to SCOTUS). If it were something that involved us going to court to fight such charges I've no doubt we'd do that - but in a manner that doesn't involve angry ranting at those questioning you. If Kavanaugh was on the witness stand in court and behaved as such a 'hostile witness'.. it certainly would not look good toward a jury that's for sure. When it comes to politics and the highest court, there is something to be said for behaving with dignity and understanding what that highest office means. Instead it's a sideshow, and he's contributed to it.

39 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Dr. Ford is the accuser, the burden of proof is on her.  If she truly wanted justice, she should have contacted the authorities in Maryland even now, but instead we get a political circus orchestrated by the Democrats.  You don’t think the Democrats are able to sink to the level of false accusations?

In a court of law, Ford would not have the burden of proof. It would be up to the state to prove the case. False accusations, sure maybe? Just as much as R's could falsely smear/accuse someone if it benefited them. But in this case, I don't look at it that way. It simply doesn't matter, if there is any splinter of a doubt, he simply shouldn't belong there. In a job situation (and my husband recounted one crazy instance that was clear about a host of violations at his workplace) if there was any whiff of accusation or mounting doubt - the person would be removed.

34 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Honestly does anyone really have the guts to say... 2 teenagers got drunk at a party at one pushed the other one on the bed and got on top of her. I doubt 37 years ago the anyone would have raised an eyebrow, except for the underage drinking. Hardly sexual assault. 

Apparently you, though your statement makes me cringe. Her testimony stated she had one beer, she was pushed onto a bed, groped, held down, and quite a bit more than just being drunkenly fumbling. And yes 37 years ago it would have happened, the woman would have experienced that same shame, mental anguish, pain, PTSD, and kept quiet because she would know there would be people like you finding it hardly a problem. No woman, no girl drunk or not. No child, no boy, no man... deserves to be violated or attempted to be violated.

19 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The real question is will we allow the Democrats to ruin this for women that are truly victims of sexual attack.

But you don't know that she isn't really a victim. You weren't there.