Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM

It's cute you claim missing details and then dismiss it all without hearing Dr. Fords testimony??

Christine Blasey Ford said in her Washington Post interview that she gave all the details she can remember and that she has nothing further to add. As it stands now, Christine has not spoken to the FBI about the incident, nor has she given any details of the incident under oath, both of which, she must tell the truth, or else be breaking the law. All that hearing her testimony would do is give Senators the opportunity to potentially find her less credible. Other than her stating her claims under oath, there isn't anything she can do to booster her side of the story.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM

BTW especially since this isn't a court of law the lie detector test Dr. Ford took, the revelation in 2012 (pre political motivation) to her therapist (which IS corroborated by her husband BTW) is all going to be brought up!

I don't think we will see the same circus that we saw in the previous hearings, as I suspect either they will not be public, or an outside counsel will ask the questions rather than the senators. All of what you mention will likely be brought up though.

The ~~lie detector~~ polygraph test does not prove anything, assuming she was not lying, all it potentially shows is that she believes what she said, however it also possible to "beat" a polygraph even if you knowingly lie. My understanding of the specific polygraph test she took is that she stated that she believes a summary statement of her allegation is true, and I am not sure about other details in regards to how the test was conducted to look for inconsistencies, such as the measurement of baselines for both telling the truth, and for her being scarred.

The notes from the therapist (which were recorded contemporaneously with her conversation with her therapist, indicating they are an accurate reflection of the conversation, unless the therapist is otherwise shown to be unreliable) reflect that Christine said the incident involved 4 boys, not the two she is now claiming. This changed detail is only going to make her a less reliable witness. She also described the people responsible for the incident very broadly.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM

I've seen no information at present that would indicate anything but the dems towing the party line on this one.

The reason why democrats want to delay the vote until after the midterms is because Democrats running for reelection in "red" states are under pressure to vote to confirm him by their constituents. Thus far, they have not committed one way or another. These democrats will have a lot of pressure to vote to confirm Kavanaugh even if only 47-49 Republicans are voting yes.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM

The only hook Kavanaugh had open to him was that he was a minor and hammered. But by him categorically denying it happened he has turned this into a situation where one of them is lying and one of them is telling the truth.

Generally speaking, people who commit these types of crimes are repeat offenders, and it is unusual for there to only be exactly one accuser decades after the fact.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM

Dr. Ford on the other hand is likely to give detailed accounts of the events of the night and other things from around the time.

Actually she will not. She has already said she doesn't remember what year the alleged incident occurred, how she got to the party, who else was at the party, or how she left the party. She doesn't even know where this happened other than it was in Montgomery County, MD, which is where she lived at the time.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 18, 2018, 12:41:44 PM

My cousins to the south can rest a little easier knowing that ~50% of the American people are one step closer to keeping their right to choose for themselves.

If you are referring to Roe being overturned, then I would say that Roe was wrongly decided as the right to an abortion is no where to be found in the constitution. I don't think it will be overturned because of stare decisis. My opinion on abortion is off topic for this thread, however if the country believes this is an important right, then the country should amend the constitution (after making the case to other voters this is the right thing to do) to explicitly allow for abortions.

Quote from: CoinCube on September 18, 2018, 10:50:17 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on September 18, 2018, 05:57:06 AM

The timing is clearly political, and will probably result in all accusers of these types of crimes having less credibility.

Agreed, and this is sad. If the charges are false which is quite possible those who are behind it are throwing the real victims of terrible crimes under the bus in a desperate attempt to halt a qualified nominee who's ideology they dislike.

Facts so far as reported by the media:

[...]

4) Ms. Ford is reported to have requested anonymity and stated that she did not want to come forward but is also reported to have taken a polygraph test in August.

This is a very interesting detail, and IMO should be empathized. I believe it is evidence that she was planning on coming forward at the last minute as she did, and she wanted some credibility when she did.

Quote from: CoinCube on September 18, 2018, 10:50:17 PM

5) The accuser attorney said Ms. Ford was willing to testify before the Judiciary committee but she has yet to respond to the Senate's official request that she do so.

Christine, through her Democrat activist lawyer has said she will not testify before the FBI investigates her accusation. The FBI does not have jurisdiction over the incident as there is no allegation of a federal crime, and I have heard reports that the Montgomery County, MD police is not investigating because they have not received a complaint about the incident by Christine.

Quote from: theymos on September 19, 2018, 02:29:53 AM

The "#MeToo" stuff is often guilty-until-proven-innocent, which I absolutely hate, but the accuser in this case apparently has some years-old records of the accusation. It may be a stronger case than usual,

The records she has is notes from her therapist describing an incident involving a different number of boys she is not claiming were involved. The notes, and conversation were over 30 years after the alleged incident, and do not mention Kavanaugh by name. She also did not tell any of her friends about the alleged incident for over 3 decades after the alleged incident. She does not know most of the relevant details surrounding the incident. If anything, this is a substantially weaker case than usual.

Quote from: theymos on September 19, 2018, 02:29:53 AM

But I also wouldn't put it past Kavanaugh to sexually assault someone; it sounds like he was part of a disgusting rich-kids culture where that kind of thing could easily happen.

Quote from: QS

Generally speaking, people who commit these types of crimes are repeat offenders, and it is unusual for there to only be exactly one accuser decades after the fact.

Quote from: theymos on September 19, 2018, 02:29:53 AM

Personally, I hope that Kavanaugh gets replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, though that's probably unlikely.

I don't think there is enough time for her to be nominated, and sufficiently vetted in a way that will result in her getting 50 votes before the midterms. The senate can hold a vote 5 minutes after she is nominated, however I believe many senators will be hesitant to vote for someone for a lifetime appointment to our country's highest court without looking into her closely for several months.

Quote from: Flying Hellfish on September 19, 2018, 05:28:38 AM

tell me why someone controlling such a set up mission would place Kavanaugh's buddy in the room with them by Dr. Fords admission?

The other person the Christine Beasley Ford claimed to be in the room described her allegation as "nonsense" and that such an incident never happened. There is not even evidence that the three of them were ever at a party together, and her lack of details make it difficult to outright disprove her story.

Quote from: theymos on September 20, 2018, 01:52:51 AM

If the government was full of a bunch of honest philosophers who really cared about doing things the right way, then IMO there's enough evidence to halt the process and look into it carefully.

What evidence is there, exactly? There is a single uncorroborated, unspecific accusation by someone with political motivations to block the nomination, who went public with her claims at the politically best time. Both of the witnesses to the alleged incident have denied the incident took place. The WSJ editorial board argued that the evidence does not even warrant additional hearing, and they are right.

One person is making an unsubstantiated claim about something from 35 years ago, that she told no one about for over 30 years, and two people say it didn't happen.