Posted on 09/16/2018 8:33:13 PM PDT by OddLane
I don’t understand what you people who are taking this accusation seriously think can even be achieved here. Let’s forget the propensity of the left to do this (I love how Roy Moore passing a polygraph didn’t matter, but apparently this woman’s alleged polygraph does) for a second.
What is the standard by which you demonstrate that either party is telling the truth? If you can’t answer that question, how do you justify taking the claim seriously when she says she told nobody until 30+ years after the incident? There is no potential to gather evidence, as 36 years later there’s certainly no physical evidence.
There’s a reason why we have statutes of limitations in America. It’s not so criminals can run the clock out on charges, it’s because after a certain amount of time evidence which proves innocence may become unavailable. That’s the standard we need to keep in mind in light of this accusation. If there is no evidence, you cannot thrust this matter into a confirmation process.
If he doesn't, the GOP is kaput.
I’m sure he’ll do whatever is necessary. He has a lot of detractors here, but on Supreme Court nominations he’s been an absolute champ.
That is only one piece of this issue. There is another one.
Should old high school misdeeds that wouldn’t have added up to a whole crime in a previous era be used against anyone to deny them appointments or jobs decades later, when society’s mores change (or simply the individual becomes an adult with decent comportment)?
Clearly, accusing a man of a child rape as a teen, or helping to bury a murdered victim’s body back then, would be accusations that might point to a permanent character flaw as well as perhaps a prosecutable crime.
Lesser bad deeds, though. Do we want everyone to be judged by such standards? In a day where attacking girls sexually was commonplace, where women on tv said no but meant yes, and when one’s morals are not fully formed but testosterone is raging, should a misdeed of pulling at clothes and rolling round on a dressed woman be enough to ruin a man’s later career? What else? Trying cocaine? One visit to a gay bar? Dropping off a frat brother drunk with no money in a bad part of town? Changing high school grades in AV class? Being drunk in class? Getting a girl pregnant?
Are there enough people who did nothing wrong in high school to find 9 for the court?
It’s rather like how many of those who remember past lives were the same famous people.
If this dingbat ever finds her way in front of this committee to testify against Kavanaugh, I would line up four people to testify immediately after her as rebuttal witnesses:
1. Ashley Kavanaugh (wife)
2. Liza Kavanaugh (daughter)
3. Margaret Kavanaugh (daughter)
4. Dianne Feinstein
Major correction. In the U.S., you do NOT have to prove you are INNOCENT. The prosecutor has to prove you are GUILTY.
Bingo.
DO NOT let this woman in front of the committee. Hold the “call” or whatever it is Grassley wants to do. If you let her go it’ll just be a signal to the dems that you can wait until the hearings are over for them to pull this shit with all judicial nominees. Maintain that SINCE THE DEMOCRAT REPRESENTING CHINA KNEW ABOUT THIS SINCE JULY that was the time to come forward if this corrupt, activist hack wanted to appear before the committee and that the FBI has looked at the letter and found it wanting. You can have your little call but NO opportunity for Fartacus or the Ugandan Giant to grandstand while this woman cries which is obviously what they want.
The Republicans need to hold the line on this.
I smell opportunity. If this woman is as bat shut nuts as she appears to be, the GOP shouldnoress for a public hearing asap. My spider senses tell me that DiFi held this back because she knows this woman will come across as a lunatic.
in 2012.. when they thought Romney would win and nominate him.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/
This repressed memories issue is actually kind of interesting. I have seen people in my own family remember vividly things that never happened. After going to a therapist to resolve other issues.
You can blame all your issues on these repressed memories and spend all your time discovering more pain and anguish these repressed “memories” have caused in your life and blame members of your family for your pain. It divides families irreparably and it is evil.
I’ve been thinking that someone named Satan is responsible for these repressed memories that cause families to be torn apart.
In this case I think these repressed memories are suddenly important because President Donald J Trump has the great potential be harmed by them.
You’re referring to ratings from a Christine Ford at Fullerton, not Palo Alto. I don’t think they are the same person. The Christine Ford who has made accusations has removed her on line presence as much as possible. The one at Fullerton has not.
Wrong Professor Ford.
Fullerton Christine:
Ford, Christine (2007), Lecturer in Social Work A.A., Cerritos College; B.S.N., M.S.W., California State University, Long Beach
Palo Alto Christine use the name of Christine Blasey professionally and went to UNC and Pepperdine.
It’s the same thing that the Sig Hanson, one of the Captains from “Deadliest Catch” was accused of by his bitter ex-wife and their daughter - who he gave up parental rights to in the divorce - who then became a lawyer and sued Sig after he became famous to try to get money out of him. There is ALWAYS a lawyer or psychologist who will find a way to justify a demand for money.
Wrong Professor.
Christine Blasey Ford teaches and publishes under her maiden name. She does not hold a license as a psychologist or clinical social worker.
Christie Blasey evaluations would come from Stanford and Palo Alto University where she is a research psychologist.
“...I’ve reached the point where I firmly believe that the left is incapable of telling the truth...”
Yep. I guess that’s why the get along so well with the muzzles. Both outright liars.
Actually, they’re insane communists....vile, evil, nasty, low-life scum of the earth.
Anita Hill at least presented a compelling public figure.
A psych professor who is probably as batty as every other tenured prof in academe probably isn't as persuasive in spreading a last-minute smear.
1. Democrats begin to believe their own press and start to think that gaining control of the Senate in January 2019 is possible.
2. They fail to lay a glove on the nominee in the confirmation hearings proper.
3. They decide to unload this strategy – to weaken the nomination, to try to get a delay past the election, in the hope that they get a majority and can offer Flake and Corker something in the lame duck session to obstruct a vote until the new Congress.
4. While everyone was looking at Collins and Murkowski – they already knew that Flake and Corker were their best bets.
5. They are shameless.
6. I hope the Senate holds and two more openings appear on SCOTUS during 2019.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.