People go to therapy for the confidentiality that they receive from it. Making everything she said public that day, especially when she was being denied an investigation into it is a violation of her privacy IMO.
Well, I respect those reasons for not wanting to present the evidence, but then what are we left with? No therapist ever came forward to confirm anything. We can't view the evidence itself. The FBI said there was no corroboration to the allegations, so we can assume they weren't convinced. We are left with nothing. But it's an open question whether she actually turned it over, since I can't seem to find confirmation of that, but if she didn't it seriously calls into question the credibility of it.
If they won't bring forth the evidence, they can't use the evidence, i'm afraid.
There are no witnesses. Not that implicate Kavanaugh anyway. Not one witness claims this. I wasn't aware his own calendar had a spot for "sexually assault Ford" or that his buddies autobiography did either. None of his classmates testified that he sexually assaulted anyone and dozens of his classmates testified to his character.
Her therapy documentation was the only possible evidence that could be credible in this manner, and she refused to turn it over to the Senate multiple times. Refusing to hand over evidence was a disqualifying factor to Ellison's accuser, and I accept that, and so I don't see why that shouldn't be any different here.
I imagine she ultimately did have to end up presenting this evidence to the FBI, but the fact that the public never got a chance to look at it and the FBI dismissed it tells me something is rotten there.
There is a difference between "refused to hand it over" and "refused to hand it over until the FBI interviewed her". What assurances did she have that some Senate staffer wasn't going to release it to some right-wing organization, and use its contents to smear her? Refusing to turn it over unless it was to the FBI sounds pretty astute, to me.
Why look, a senate staffer was caught doing just that thing!
If she only wants to turn it over to the FBI that's fine, but then we can trust in the FBI's judgement that there is no corroboration to these allegations.
I'm sobered by the just realized fact that yesterday 12 people were gunned down in another mass shooting yesterday morning, and, for the first time, not even a single person here thought it was newsworthy enough to mention. I put myself in this category. That's how numb and far gone we are in regards to guns. Some of the people who were killed were SURVIVORS of the Vegas shooting. We are now getting mass shooting veterans being killed in other mass shootings. This country is turning into an insane asylum.
@jjstraka34 Actually, I posted two stories about it here. No, make that three. As a facebook meme I saw said, "The worst thing about today's shooting is having to use the word "Today's"."
If she only wants to turn it over to the FBI that's fine, but then we can trust in the FBI's judgement that there is no corroboration to these allegations.
If she only wants to turn it over to the FBI that's fine, but then we can trust in the FBI's judgement that there is no corroboration to these allegations.
Actually, they never interviewed her. Which says volumes on how thorough an investigation it was. That is to say, not at all. Apparently, as of October 8th of this year, they still have not. So, no, we can't trust in their judgement.
When will the FBI interview Christine Blasey Ford?
by Kelly Cohen | October 02, 2018 04:24 PM | Updated Oct 02, 2018, 05:49 PM
Normally I would say, it doesn't make them better and they aren't any better, but I just can't remember the last time Republicans went on a spree of false accusations in the attempt to finger an innocent person with monstrous crimes of the worst kind. I'm open to suggestions of course.
OMG. No offense but your memory is not good if you can't remember yesterday which was the last time Republicans went on a spree of false accusations in the attempt to finger an innocent person with monstrous crimes of the worst kind.
1) Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the "Jim Acosta laid hands on the poor intern!" backed up by a doctored Infowars video. Jim may have been aggressive with questions but to characterize it as laying hands on her tries to make it sound like he was slapping the crap out of her. Lies. 11/8/2018
+ 2) Jacob Wohl and the scheme to pay women to falsely accuse Robert Mueller of sexual misconduct could spectacularly backfire. 10/31/2018
3) Trump saying Democrats are evil and want to blah blah blah blah blah whatever lie it is today about something monstrous that he's lying about and attributing to Democrats.
@jjstraka34 Actually, I posted two stories about it here. No, make that three. As a facebook meme I saw said, "The worst thing about today's shooting is having to use the word "Today's"."
If she only wants to turn it over to the FBI that's fine, but then we can trust in the FBI's judgement that there is no corroboration to these allegations.
If she only wants to turn it over to the FBI that's fine, but then we can trust in the FBI's judgement that there is no corroboration to these allegations.
Actually, they never interviewed her. Which says volumes on how thorough an investigation it was. That is to say, not at all. Apparently, as of October 8th of this year, they still have not. So, no, we can't trust in their judgement.
When will the FBI interview Christine Blasey Ford?
by Kelly Cohen | October 02, 2018 04:24 PM | Updated Oct 02, 2018, 05:49 PM
This is proof that you can legislate behavior that is harmful to others effectively. Growing up, even the non-smoking section of restaurants was often unbearable for a meal if you were downwind from a smoker. I attribute at least a portion of the blame for my mother's early death at 46 to the second-hand smoke she was inhaling 5-6 nights a week while bartending as her second job for over 16 years. We moved it out of restaurants, we moved it out of bars, and even at work people now need to go to designated areas. Smoking used to be advertised and marketed as cool. I'll admit, it looks cool in movies and television. But the fact is, it could be dreadfully harmful to those who were only exposed to it because of the behavior of others. And their rights should come before those who were selfishly harming others because of their own habit. In a way, we stigmatized it. The new policies over the years shamed people into stopping. We got this one right.
People go to therapy for the confidentiality that they receive from it. Making everything she said public that day, especially when she was being denied an investigation into it is a violation of her privacy IMO.
The patient/client can waive privacy/confidentiality. The therapist/lawyer/accountant/medical professional cannot, unless given direct permission from the patient/client.
For example, I was a cancer patient of M.D. Anderson Hospital. OMG, HIPPA violations! I'm going to jail for violating my own privacy!
People go to therapy for the confidentiality that they receive from it. Making everything she said public that day, especially when she was being denied an investigation into it is a violation of her privacy IMO.
The patient/client can waive privacy/confidentiality. The therapist/lawyer/accountant/medical professional cannot, unless given direct permission from the patient/client.
For example, I was a cancer patient of M.D. Anderson Hospital. OMG, HIPPA violations! I'm going to jail for violating my own privacy!
WHY would she though? It is still a private matter between her and her therapist. Who knows what else they talked about in those notes that could smear her if taken out of context. If there is no investigation, why would she give them up? She doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. She told her story, you can believe her or you don't have to believe her.
This is proof that you can legislate behavior that is harmful to others effectively. Growing up, even the non-smoking section of restaurants was often unbearable for a meal if you were downwind from a smoker. I attribute at least a portion of the blame for my mother's early death at 46 to the second-hand smoke she was inhaling 5-6 nights a week while bartending as her second job for over 16 years. We moved it out of restaurants, we moved it out of bars, and even at work people now need to go to designated areas. Smoking used to be advertised and marketed as cool. I'll admit, it looks cool in movies and television. But the fact is, it could be dreadfully harmful to those who were only exposed to it because of the behavior of others. And their rights should come before those who were selfishly harming others because of their own habit. In a way, we stigmatized it. The new policies over the years shamed people into stopping. We got this one right.
I absolutely agree with you. I've posted a number of times about the way the law can lead as well as follow social behavior. The ability to do that though depends on making legislation that most people think is reasonable. For instance banning alcohol, during Prohibition, was not seen as reasonable so that law did far more harm than good. However, banning drink-driving was seen as reasonable and that behavior is now seen as socially unacceptable.
In the case of smoking there was a strong, well-funded lobby proclaiming that the changes to the law were an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom and that the law would cause chaos because it couldn't be policed. Despite that lobbying effort most people agree the restrictions are reasonable and that allows the law to be policed almost entirely through the use of social pressures.
To be a bit more controversial, I can't help feeling there are parallels here with gun laws. If reasonable restrictions were universally put in place (things like advance checks before purchase, requirement to attend training and need to store guns safely) I believe they would be generally socially accepted and that in turn would help to substantially reduce problematic behavior. I'm not talking at all here about the impact on crime or what is commonly thought of as violence. There are more people killed by guns in accidents and suicides than in crimes - looking after guns properly would help significantly reduce this.
Trump's BIGGEST Lie? TYT on Trump's embarrassing behavior since the midterms and installing an obvious partisan hack to the head the justice department https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsisOseWVuA
This is proof that you can legislate behavior that is harmful to others effectively. Growing up, even the non-smoking section of restaurants was often unbearable for a meal if you were downwind from a smoker. I attribute at least a portion of the blame for my mother's early death at 46 to the second-hand smoke she was inhaling 5-6 nights a week while bartending as her second job for over 16 years. We moved it out of restaurants, we moved it out of bars, and even at work people now need to go to designated areas. Smoking used to be advertised and marketed as cool. I'll admit, it looks cool in movies and television. But the fact is, it could be dreadfully harmful to those who were only exposed to it because of the behavior of others. And their rights should come before those who were selfishly harming others because of their own habit. In a way, we stigmatized it. The new policies over the years shamed people into stopping. We got this one right.
I absolutely agree with you. I've posted a number of times about the way the law can lead as well as follow social behavior. The ability to do that though depends on making legislation that most people think is reasonable. For instance banning alcohol, during Prohibition, was not seen as reasonable so that law did far more harm than good. However, banning drink-driving was seen as reasonable and that behavior is now seen as socially unacceptable.
In the case of smoking there was a strong, well-funded lobby proclaiming that the changes to the law were an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom and that the law would cause chaos because it couldn't be policed. Despite that lobbying effort most people agree the restrictions are reasonable and that allows the law to be policed almost entirely through the use of social pressures.
To be a bit more controversial, I can't help feeling there are parallels here with gun laws. If reasonable restrictions were universally put in place (things like advance checks before purchase, requirement to attend training and need to store guns safely) I believe they would be generally socially accepted and that in turn would help to substantially reduce problematic behavior. I'm not talking at all here about the impact on crime or what is commonly thought of as violence. There are more people killed by guns in accidents and suicides than in crimes - looking after guns properly would help significantly reduce this.
And it wasn't some heavy-handed approach. No one was told (or is even told now) that they are forbidden from smoking. They are simply no longer allowed to so in public places where they can cause discomfort or potential harm to others (for instance, a child with asthma). The analogy to guns is perfect. What is being advocated are common sense regulations. And the gun lobby needs to go the way of the tobacco lobby. They are both instruments of death. One of them is viewed as such. The NRA is (albeit slowly) starting to lose it's grip on any pretense of respectability as well.
There are no witnesses. Not that implicate Kavanaugh anyway. Not one witness claims this. I wasn't aware his own calendar had a spot for "sexually assault Ford" or that his buddies autobiography did either. None of his classmates testified that he sexually assaulted anyone and dozens of his classmates testified to his character.
Her therapy documentation was the only possible evidence that could be credible in this manner, and she refused to turn it over to the Senate multiple times. Refusing to hand over evidence was a disqualifying factor to Ellison's accuser, and I accept that, and so I don't see why that shouldn't be any different here.
I imagine she ultimately did have to end up presenting this evidence to the FBI, but the fact that the public never got a chance to look at it and the FBI dismissed it tells me something is rotten there.
@WarChiefZeke as already pointed out the FBI never interviewed Ford. The fact that you referred to this several times as if this was something that had obviously happened demonstrates just what a sham the FBI investigation was. Kavanaugh himself was also not interviewed - and in a full investigation that would obviously have been done to probe why he lied about so many things in his testimony.
You also refer to the lack of witnesses for sexual assault claims. In the case of Ford's claim there was a witness - Mark Judge. He was interviewed by the FBI, but his then girlfriend (who said Judge had made references to her about sexually aggressive behavior) was not. In the case of Ramirez there were multiple witnesses to alleged behavior which, while it would not probably be thought of in common parlance as an assault, does meet the legal definition for that. As far as is publicly known none of those potential witnesses were interviewed by the FBI.
You said in an earlier post that there was no evidence Kavanaugh had lied in his testimony and that is not the case. This article refers to a number of issues on which there is strong evidence that he lied. The article also considers whether those lies amounted to perjury and there I agree things are much more questionable. Not only does perjury have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but you also need to demonstrate a state of mind, i.e. that lies were told wilfully rather than accidentally or as a result of lapses of memory. I think in relation to something like the definition of 'devils triangle' there is actually a very good chance of proving perjury, but that's not really the point. The issue is that a habitual liar should not be on the Supreme Court.
There's a longer list in this article of lies Kavanaugh told in his testimony to the Senate and that's certainly not all of them. When I watched the testimony I remember being annoyed by a clear lie about the location of the country club that Ford said was near the house where the party took place. Kavanaugh is still a member there, so it's unlikely he simply got the location wrong - the reason for lying about the location would be that was yet another clue that the gathering listed on his calendar for 1st July 1982 is the one Ford was referencing.
There are no witnesses. Not that implicate Kavanaugh anyway. Not one witness claims this. I wasn't aware his own calendar had a spot for "sexually assault Ford" or that his buddies autobiography did either. None of his classmates testified that he sexually assaulted anyone and dozens of his classmates testified to his character.
Her therapy documentation was the only possible evidence that could be credible in this manner, and she refused to turn it over to the Senate multiple times. Refusing to hand over evidence was a disqualifying factor to Ellison's accuser, and I accept that, and so I don't see why that shouldn't be any different here.
I imagine she ultimately did have to end up presenting this evidence to the FBI, but the fact that the public never got a chance to look at it and the FBI dismissed it tells me something is rotten there.
@WarChiefZeke as already pointed out the FBI never interviewed Ford. The fact that you referred to this several times as if this was something that had obviously happened demonstrates just what a sham the FBI investigation was. Kavanaugh himself was also not interviewed - and in a full investigation that would obviously have been done to probe why he lied about so many things in his testimony.
You also refer to the lack of witnesses for sexual assault claims. In the case of Ford's claim there was a witness - Mark Judge. He was interviewed by the FBI, but his then girlfriend (who said Judge had made references to her about sexually aggressive behavior) was not. In the case of Ramirez there were multiple witnesses to alleged behavior which, while it would not probably be thought of in common parlance as an assault, does meet the legal definition for that. As far as is publicly known none of those potential witnesses were interviewed by the FBI.
You said in an earlier post that there was no evidence Kavanaugh had lied in his testimony and that is not the case. This article refers to a number of issues on which there is strong evidence that he lied. The article also considers whether those lies amounted to perjury and there I agree things are much more questionable. Not only does perjury have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but you also need to demonstrate a state of mind, i.e. that lies were told wilfully rather than accidentally or as a result of lapses of memory. I think in relation to something like the definition of 'devils triangle' there is actually a very good chance of proving perjury, but that's not really the point. The issue is that a habitual liar should not be on the Supreme Court.
There's a longer list in this article of lies Kavanaugh told in his testimony to the Senate and that's certainly not all of them. When I watched the testimony I remember being annoyed by a clear lie about the location of the country club that Ford said was near the house where the party took place. Kavanaugh is still a member there, so it's unlikely he simply got the location wrong - the reason for lying about the location would be that was yet another clue that the gathering listed on his calendar for 1st July 1982 is the one Ford was referencing.
Again, we're living in 1984, the novel. The dear leader says a lie such as "Kavanaugh was totally exonerated and falsely accused!" This was not at all what happened but the Dear leaders' media sycophants repeat it. Then the lies trickle down to their laypeople become truth.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth."— George Orwell, 1984
There's tons of evidence that exists and was not looked at. There's leads that were not followed. Republicans worked to avoid the evidence. Now they pretend that cleared him.
I don't blame you. But that's what Trump wants. Just the whitest of white people.
I don't agree with ethno nationalism, but why Israel wanting only jew immigrants, with DNA testing ( https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/2/2/469/826237 ) and Japan can be 98% Japanese and most non Japanese being Japanese-descendents and other Asians, but if a white country do the same, the country is racist?
What if Germany decides to only give citizenship to people who are German by blood and test immigrants to proof the German ancestry? People will call then nazists, will do parallels with the nazi-germany where naturalization are restricted to people who are german by blood like Egon Albrecht Lemke(Brazilian) and Richard Walther Darre(Argentine) and probably put then under economic sanctions.
How the media will react if the Trump start to deport to Haiti American citizens who "look like haitian"?
To be honest, I don't like either Japan or Israel's immigration policies, either. But we have a different tradition in this country. We are the "Shining City on a Hill" that takes in the poor and homeless. We don't discriminate. We aren't supposed to discriminate. Criminals? Sure, we don't want criminals. But people who aren't criminals? We are supposed to take them in, not discriminate on them based on the color of their skin.
Does Israel have a history of taking in everyone, including non-Jews? No. Does Japan have a history of taking in non-Japanese? Probably not. Both countries have very little room, anyhow. America has many times more space for people. So these places are not like America. You are comparing kumquats to an Apple.
You are right about America having much more space, but lets suppose that Germany adopt the same immigration and citizenship law as Israel. Do you really think that the media will not freak out and the governments will not impose sanctions on Germany? I an not advocating anything, only showing that there are double standards.
Anyway, i an very libertarian. The state should't protect an adult man/woman for itself. The state should treat his citizens like cattle/livestock. Like if the citizen can vote for one who will decide but can't decide by itself, this logic makes no sense.
Guns? Liberalized without any regulation Prostitution? Legalized without any regulation Drugs? Legalized without any regulation Gambling? Legalized without any regulation Discrimination? Should be allowed (...)
I'd actually prefer to more heavily regulate gambling and impose limits on how much money a casino can take from the average gambler and from individual gamblers. Gambling is an inherently addictive practice and has little to no upsides for anyone except for the people making money off of the losses of others.
As for prostitution, I'd rather legalize it but also establish some regulations like regular STI testing.
Regulating smoking was not about protecting smokers from themselves. It was about regulating the direct harm and discomfort they could cause to others in their immediate vicinity, especially in enclosed/indoor public places. It was flat-out killing people who had no say in what was happening to them. Not a few, but millions:
Regulating smoking was not about protecting smokers from themselves. It was about regulating the direct harm and discomfort they could cause to others in their immediate vicinity, especially in enclosed/indoor public places. It was flat-out killing people who had no say in what was happening to them. Not a few, but millions:
Regulating smoking was not about protecting smokers from themselves. It was about regulating the direct harm and discomfort they could cause to others in their immediate vicinity, especially in enclosed/indoor public places. It was flat-out killing people who had no say in what was happening to them. Not a few, but millions:
Regulating smoking was not about protecting smokers from themselves. It was about regulating the direct harm and discomfort they could cause to others in their immediate vicinity, especially in enclosed/indoor public places. It was flat-out killing people who had no say in what was happening to them. Not a few, but millions:
Is there anything else that should be regulated that is flat out killing millions but has a big lobbyist protecting it?
Maybe we can use our lessons learned with tobacco.
Pharmaceuticals???
CARS!?
I'd be totally behind reasonable regulations in actuality.I just can't resist being a smart butt sometimes. As an example, I think gun ownership should require safety and competence testing. If you can't pass a gun safety test or demonstration (let's say every four years, like car licenses), you shouldn't be allowed to own one.
Regulating smoking was not about protecting smokers from themselves. It was about regulating the direct harm and discomfort they could cause to others in their immediate vicinity, especially in enclosed/indoor public places. It was flat-out killing people who had no say in what was happening to them. Not a few, but millions:
“Trump will use the U.S. military for a pre election political stunt but sits in his hotel instead of honoring those who fought and died for America.” - Ben Rhodes after Trump canceled an appearance at a US military cemetery in France due to “weather.”
There are no witnesses. Not that implicate Kavanaugh anyway. Not one witness claims this. I wasn't aware his own calendar had a spot for "sexually assault Ford" or that his buddies autobiography did either. None of his classmates testified that he sexually assaulted anyone and dozens of his classmates testified to his character.
Her therapy documentation was the only possible evidence that could be credible in this manner, and she refused to turn it over to the Senate multiple times. Refusing to hand over evidence was a disqualifying factor to Ellison's accuser, and I accept that, and so I don't see why that shouldn't be any different here.
I imagine she ultimately did have to end up presenting this evidence to the FBI, but the fact that the public never got a chance to look at it and the FBI dismissed it tells me something is rotten there.
@WarChiefZeke as already pointed out the FBI never interviewed Ford. The fact that you referred to this several times as if this was something that had obviously happened demonstrates just what a sham the FBI investigation was. Kavanaugh himself was also not interviewed - and in a full investigation that would obviously have been done to probe why he lied about so many things in his testimony.
You also refer to the lack of witnesses for sexual assault claims. In the case of Ford's claim there was a witness - Mark Judge. He was interviewed by the FBI, but his then girlfriend (who said Judge had made references to her about sexually aggressive behavior) was not. In the case of Ramirez there were multiple witnesses to alleged behavior which, while it would not probably be thought of in common parlance as an assault, does meet the legal definition for that. As far as is publicly known none of those potential witnesses were interviewed by the FBI.
The Ramirez witnesses were interviewed. The Ford witnesses were interviewed.
Ford, herself, was not, which they had made clear. They planned to interview all the other witnesses- none who gave any hint to his guilt, by the way- who were not interviewed before a comittee, and that's what they did.
Which is at it should be. Why would the re-interview her, when they already had all her statements, unless she planned to change her story?
They leveraged her only supposedly valid evidence as a bargain made to lose rather than release it to the public *during her nationally televised interview or any time after*. That is credibility destroying, by recent precedent and by common sense and by anything other than partisanship.
I also love how the FBI conducts sham investigations now. Is it or is it not an organization to be trusted? Criticism of the Mueller investigation is not tolerated. These are people from the same institutions.
It's amazing how the conclusions that are drawn about any particular situation match politucal fault lines to a T. The times we live in.
Also you misunderstand, what I said was there wasn't perjury. Perjury doesn't mean you say you drink in moderation and really you drank alot, or that you never coached someone in a lie detector test when really you did. Well, the latter is iffy.
@WarChiefZeke "I also love how the FBI conducts sham investigations now. Is it or is it not an organization to be trusted? Criticism of the Mueller investigation is not tolerated. These are people from the same institutions. "
This was addressed earlier. Yeah, they are people in the same organization, but they aren't the same people in the organization. The Kavanaugh investigation was headed by a CLOSE FRIEND OF KAVANAUGH'S. Which is already a huge conflict of interest. And no, we have reports of past classamtes of Kavanaugh calling in to testify on his conduct and being ignored by the investigation.
"It's amazing how the conclusions that are drawn about any particular situation match politucal fault lines to a T. The times we live in. "
This line is hilariously devoid of self awareness.
“Trump will use the U.S. military for a pre election political stunt but sits in his hotel instead of honoring those who fought and died for America.” - Ben Rhodes after Trump canceled an appearance at a US military cemetery in France due to “weather.”
His response this morning to an ongoing wildfire in California that has killed 10 people was to threaten to cut federal funding, as if this guy knows shit-all about forestry policy.
And look, Trump should put to bed once and for all this horseshit narrative that we've been living with since the Bush Administration about how much Republicans love the troops and Democrats hate them. Trump insulted a Gold Star family, a prisoner of war, couldn't even manage to feign empathy in a call to a war widow, can't even be bothered to step out in the rain with other world leaders at ceremony honoring WWI veterans (as if umbrellas aren't a thing), and his sending the troops to the border before the election was THE most naked political stunt the US military has ever been used for. Notice how the imminent threat of the "caravan" disappeared into thin-air in the last 72 hours?? It was similar to the Ebola scare Republicans pushed leading up to 2014. In reality, the Obama Administration handled it perfectly, letting the CDC do their job. The only person who died was the initial patient who was way too far gone to save. Everyone else pulled through, and there was no outbreak. It didn't stop Republicans from going on TV screaming about how people with Ebola were coming in from the southern border, or Chris Christie quarantining a nurse against her will for weeks despite no medical evidence showing she was a threat.
Oh, and for the record (back to the initial topic of this post), almost all of the land that is burning right now in California is FEDERAL, not state land. So if the wildfire is anyone's "fault", it's his and his interior department, no one else. Of course, it isn't anyone's fault, it's because there is a goddamn drought. But god knows he couldn't prevent himself from taking a shot at the state simply because it didn't vote for him, even as part of it is burning down. It has never been more clear he only views himself as the President of those who support him. There is no common ground to be found with a man like this. Imagine what kind of shitstorm would have ensued if Barack Obama ever talked like this during a natural disaster in a red-state.
There are no witnesses. Not that implicate Kavanaugh anyway. Not one witness claims this. I wasn't aware his own calendar had a spot for "sexually assault Ford" or that his buddies autobiography did either. None of his classmates testified that he sexually assaulted anyone and dozens of his classmates testified to his character.
Her therapy documentation was the only possible evidence that could be credible in this manner, and she refused to turn it over to the Senate multiple times. Refusing to hand over evidence was a disqualifying factor to Ellison's accuser, and I accept that, and so I don't see why that shouldn't be any different here.
I imagine she ultimately did have to end up presenting this evidence to the FBI, but the fact that the public never got a chance to look at it and the FBI dismissed it tells me something is rotten there.
@WarChiefZeke as already pointed out the FBI never interviewed Ford. The fact that you referred to this several times as if this was something that had obviously happened demonstrates just what a sham the FBI investigation was. Kavanaugh himself was also not interviewed - and in a full investigation that would obviously have been done to probe why he lied about so many things in his testimony.
You also refer to the lack of witnesses for sexual assault claims. In the case of Ford's claim there was a witness - Mark Judge. He was interviewed by the FBI, but his then girlfriend (who said Judge had made references to her about sexually aggressive behavior) was not. In the case of Ramirez there were multiple witnesses to alleged behavior which, while it would not probably be thought of in common parlance as an assault, does meet the legal definition for that. As far as is publicly known none of those potential witnesses were interviewed by the FBI.
The Ramirez witnesses were interviewed. The Ford witnesses were interviewed.
Ford, herself, was not, which they had made clear. They planned to interview all the other witnesses- none who gave any hint to his guilt, by the way- who were not interviewed before a comittee, and that's what they did.
Which is at it should be. Why would the re-interview her, when they already had all her statements, unless she planned to change her story?
They leveraged her only supposedly valid evidence as a bargain made to lose rather than release it to the public *during her nationally televised interview or any time after*. That is credibility destroying, by recent precedent and by common sense and by anything other than partisanship.
I also love how the FBI conducts sham investigations now. Is it or is it not an organization to be trusted? Criticism of the Mueller investigation is not tolerated. These are people from the same institutions.
It's amazing how the conclusions that are drawn about any particular situation match politucal fault lines to a T. The times we live in.
Also you misunderstand, what I said was there wasn't perjury. Perjury doesn't mean you say you drink in moderation and really you drank alot, or that you never coached someone in a lie detector test when really you did. Well, the latter is iffy.
That link you cited makes it appear as as if Judge was interviewed while all prevailing information we had at the times indicated he was not.
It seems that Mr. Judge was allowed to submit written answers which was this: "I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today," he wrote. "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes. I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony."
There's a footnote on the executive summary: "[1] Mr. Judge was also questioned extensively about other allegations besides Dr. Ford’s."
Maybe they mean the "I totally never saw him act in a manner Dr. Ford describes." is the 'extensive questioning'.
It's hard to tell what to make of that because the report you are linking, from the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a partisan report. It was released without bipartisan input. It was specifically crafted to be released before the midterms to make it appear as if Kavanaugh was innocent. There are ulterior motives there. Clearly.
So anyway, was he interviewed? Was he not? Why was the supplemental background investigation released in a secure compartment facility with only 24 hours for 100 senators to leaf through the papers one at a time? If you think there wasn't partisan intent with this you are misled.
Director Wray testified to congress that the investigation was limited in scope.
“Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope" - Wray
Wray declined to answer if Don McGahn, the White houseses lawyer, directed the investigation as was widely reported by multiple sources.
Trump controlled the investigation into Kavanaugh. period. Trump has installed Whitaker in the Justice Department to control the Mueller investigation. Because he's guilty as sin.
Comments
People go to therapy for the confidentiality that they receive from it. Making everything she said public that day, especially when she was being denied an investigation into it is a violation of her privacy IMO.
If they won't bring forth the evidence, they can't use the evidence, i'm afraid.
Why look, a senate staffer was caught doing just that thing!
Trump’s DOJ leak probe snags Senate staffer
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/trump-s-doj-leak-probe-snags-senate-staffer-1250940483881?v=raila&DOJ investigating ex-Senate Intel staffer for leaking information
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/391280-doj-investigating-ex-senate-intel-staffer-for-leaking-informationIf she only wants to turn it over to the FBI that's fine, but then we can trust in the FBI's judgement that there is no corroboration to these allegations. Actually, they never interviewed her. Which says volumes on how thorough an investigation it was. That is to say, not at all. Apparently, as of October 8th of this year, they still have not. So, no, we can't trust in their judgement.
When will the FBI interview Christine Blasey Ford?
by Kelly Cohen| October 02, 2018 04:24 PM
| Updated Oct 02, 2018, 05:49 PM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/when-will-the-fbi-interview-christine-blasey-ford
1) Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the "Jim Acosta laid hands on the poor intern!" backed up by a doctored Infowars video. Jim may have been aggressive with questions but to characterize it as laying hands on her tries to make it sound like he was slapping the crap out of her. Lies. 11/8/2018
+
2) Jacob Wohl and the scheme to pay women to falsely accuse Robert Mueller of sexual misconduct could spectacularly backfire. 10/31/2018
https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-burkman-jacob-wohl-mueller-sexual-misconduct-scheme-legal-implications-2018-10
+
3) Trump saying Democrats are evil and want to blah blah blah blah blah whatever lie it is today about something monstrous that he's lying about and attributing to Democrats.
Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson sends out mass email attacking CODEPINK and appealing to Congress not to stop the war in Yemen
https://www.codepink.org/marillyn_hewson_sends_out_mass_email_attacking_codepink?fbclid=IwAR1-mkPRnaqfaa5PwTzuilZFqvbck4LXUFXToCqBPAsqdsA7Vc3Mn-T5wAAFBI: Neo-Nazi Militia Trained by US Military in Ukraine Now Training US White Supremacists
https://www.mintpressnews.com/251687-2/251687/?fbclid=IwAR1MIK5Yi74JZu4BKwecB4Ox5FRCB6IJRSBSZfcRnZTFheIMmHcshMTd6WUTrump's acting attorney general involved in firm that scammed veterans out of life savings
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-wpm-scam?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0NrV_iY2W4N_IrQAfkFaoniMkf4jpzYCYOkXRv7t1s64lnmmRKcTgA8RUDoctors share gun stories, demand action after NRA tells them to 'stay in their lane'
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/health/nra-tweet-doctors-react/index.htmlHere’s how Brian Kemp is stealing the Georgia election from Stacey Abrams
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/heres-brian-kemp-stealing-georgia-election-stacey-abrams/?fbclid=IwAR2Xva4lx3xJJudZN4RYEsDSc1XMEQIsSfncJHiPZ_XTYEb6vvG-Uv83xs0Republicans Lose As Florida Drops Voter Fraud Investigation
https://www.politicususa.com/2018/11/09/florida-law-enforcement-drops-voter-fraud-investigation.html?fbclid=IwAR1C9tD7JGocVJnbSmAv8iJ3Z2BbXiKKTCfo6kbbKiC7fWOZCAyu46xSFXgColorado voters put end to slavery in all cases
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/us/slavery-vote-in-colorado-trnd/index.html?fbclid=IwAR30M3tf7bxrR0b7QuFb7Px-C0yZRG83ZH2X2PEEqUNpBHZ8QkLAejQolg4Matthew Whitaker: acting attorney general said judges should be Christian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/matthew-whitaker-acting-attorney-general-judges-christian?mc_cid=f5f19de35b&mc_eid=e4f5b3bf81U.N.: A Yemeni Child Dies Every 10 Min. from War-Caused Disease, Hunger
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/11/5/headlines/un_a_yemeni_child_dies_every_10_min_from_war_caused_disease_hunger?fbclid=IwAR1-Qczo4_epYegW7w5ExmC-DayR9nd4CJHMHhiy7DDuP0aoG15LcV_cjAQWestern Town at Paramount Ranch, Filming Location Since 1927, Burns in Woolsey Fire: NPS
https://ktla.com/2018/11/09/western-town-at-paramount-ranch-filming-location-since-1927-burned-in-woolsey-fire-nps/?fbclid=IwAR3ThvvoYLW8bQTc795HcglF6t-SgmgY_R9VUdT-x1Uk9RR0QwDIiaUzK98Most Money Advice Is Worthless When You’re Poor
https://free.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ev3dde/most-money-advice-is-worthless?fbclid=IwAR0IOqxUjzfdHLH2K6Tpyhi4Uc4BE3UUDbqF7uBkmmwYpK94LXjN99an0WEMost White Women Are Very Happy With White Supremacy
https://nylon.com/articles/white-women-voters-elections?&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=articles&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0iKsTis7RAv1AYzRhgDMD0Jb5VqZCguV4k39oMQ38PobG-bIjU4wHNy5Ihttps://www.axios.com/united-states-smoking-rates-lowest-ever-0b5d4896-07e7-4b3f-8992-e0a50a96f2ce.html
This is proof that you can legislate behavior that is harmful to others effectively. Growing up, even the non-smoking section of restaurants was often unbearable for a meal if you were downwind from a smoker. I attribute at least a portion of the blame for my mother's early death at 46 to the second-hand smoke she was inhaling 5-6 nights a week while bartending as her second job for over 16 years. We moved it out of restaurants, we moved it out of bars, and even at work people now need to go to designated areas. Smoking used to be advertised and marketed as cool. I'll admit, it looks cool in movies and television. But the fact is, it could be dreadfully harmful to those who were only exposed to it because of the behavior of others. And their rights should come before those who were selfishly harming others because of their own habit. In a way, we stigmatized it. The new policies over the years shamed people into stopping. We got this one right.
For example, I was a cancer patient of M.D. Anderson Hospital. OMG, HIPPA violations! I'm going to jail for violating my own privacy!
She told her story, you can believe her or you don't have to believe her.
In the case of smoking there was a strong, well-funded lobby proclaiming that the changes to the law were an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom and that the law would cause chaos because it couldn't be policed. Despite that lobbying effort most people agree the restrictions are reasonable and that allows the law to be policed almost entirely through the use of social pressures.
To be a bit more controversial, I can't help feeling there are parallels here with gun laws. If reasonable restrictions were universally put in place (things like advance checks before purchase, requirement to attend training and need to store guns safely) I believe they would be generally socially accepted and that in turn would help to substantially reduce problematic behavior. I'm not talking at all here about the impact on crime or what is commonly thought of as violence. There are more people killed by guns in accidents and suicides than in crimes - looking after guns properly would help significantly reduce this.
TYT on Trump's embarrassing behavior since the midterms and installing an obvious partisan hack to the head the justice department
You also refer to the lack of witnesses for sexual assault claims. In the case of Ford's claim there was a witness - Mark Judge. He was interviewed by the FBI, but his then girlfriend (who said Judge had made references to her about sexually aggressive behavior) was not. In the case of Ramirez there were multiple witnesses to alleged behavior which, while it would not probably be thought of in common parlance as an assault, does meet the legal definition for that. As far as is publicly known none of those potential witnesses were interviewed by the FBI.
You said in an earlier post that there was no evidence Kavanaugh had lied in his testimony and that is not the case. This article refers to a number of issues on which there is strong evidence that he lied. The article also considers whether those lies amounted to perjury and there I agree things are much more questionable. Not only does perjury have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but you also need to demonstrate a state of mind, i.e. that lies were told wilfully rather than accidentally or as a result of lapses of memory. I think in relation to something like the definition of 'devils triangle' there is actually a very good chance of proving perjury, but that's not really the point. The issue is that a habitual liar should not be on the Supreme Court.
There's a longer list in this article of lies Kavanaugh told in his testimony to the Senate and that's certainly not all of them. When I watched the testimony I remember being annoyed by a clear lie about the location of the country club that Ford said was near the house where the party took place. Kavanaugh is still a member there, so it's unlikely he simply got the location wrong - the reason for lying about the location would be that was yet another clue that the gathering listed on his calendar for 1st July 1982 is the one Ford was referencing.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth."— George Orwell, 1984
ref:
There's tons of evidence that exists and was not looked at. There's leads that were not followed. Republicans worked to avoid the evidence. Now they pretend that cleared him.
To some people, this has become the truth.
Other example? An youtuber who lost his account by punching an feminist(he managed to recover https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18075826/youtube-feminist-suffragette-red-dead-redemption-ban ), why in a game where you can literally kill an entire city, commit violence against an feminist should not be accepted?
I never saw any ultra conservative in favor of censoring for example the Castlevania who heavily criticized the Catholic Church ( https://www.polygon.com/tv/2017/7/29/16062578/netflix-castlevania-religion-corruption-warren-ellis )
-------------------
Anyway, i an very libertarian. The state should't protect an adult man/woman for itself. The state should treat his citizens like cattle/livestock. Like if the citizen can vote for one who will decide but can't decide by itself, this logic makes no sense.
Guns? Liberalized without any regulation
Prostitution? Legalized without any regulation
Drugs? Legalized without any regulation
Gambling? Legalized without any regulation
Discrimination? Should be allowed
(...)
As for prostitution, I'd rather legalize it but also establish some regulations like regular STI testing.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm
Maybe we can use our lessons learned with tobacco.
I'd be totally behind reasonable regulations in actuality.I just can't resist being a smart butt sometimes. As an example, I think gun ownership should require safety and competence testing. If you can't pass a gun safety test or demonstration (let's say every four years, like car licenses), you shouldn't be allowed to own one.
You need a licence to operate one. There is a whole section of restrictions applied to operating one as well.
Pharmaceuticals are also regulated. It is one of the driving costs towards them (besides DB CEOs).
Hell even a standard chicken egg probably has more regulations attached to it than a fire arm.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/supplemental-fbi-investigation-executive-summary
Ford, herself, was not, which they had made clear. They planned to interview all the other witnesses- none who gave any hint to his guilt, by the way- who were not interviewed before a comittee, and that's what they did.
Which is at it should be. Why would the re-interview her, when they already had all her statements, unless she planned to change her story?
They leveraged her only supposedly valid evidence as a bargain made to lose rather than release it to the public *during her nationally televised interview or any time after*. That is credibility destroying, by recent precedent and by common sense and by anything other than partisanship.
I also love how the FBI conducts sham investigations now. Is it or is it not an organization to be trusted? Criticism of the Mueller investigation is not tolerated. These are people from the same institutions.
It's amazing how the conclusions that are drawn about any particular situation match politucal fault lines to a T. The times we live in.
Also you misunderstand, what I said was there wasn't perjury. Perjury doesn't mean you say you drink in moderation and really you drank alot, or that you never coached someone in a lie detector test when really you did. Well, the latter is iffy.
This was addressed earlier. Yeah, they are people in the same organization, but they aren't the same people in the organization. The Kavanaugh investigation was headed by a CLOSE FRIEND OF KAVANAUGH'S. Which is already a huge conflict of interest. And no, we have reports of past classamtes of Kavanaugh calling in to testify on his conduct and being ignored by the investigation.
"It's amazing how the conclusions that are drawn about any particular situation match politucal fault lines to a T. The times we live in. "
This line is hilariously devoid of self awareness.
And look, Trump should put to bed once and for all this horseshit narrative that we've been living with since the Bush Administration about how much Republicans love the troops and Democrats hate them. Trump insulted a Gold Star family, a prisoner of war, couldn't even manage to feign empathy in a call to a war widow, can't even be bothered to step out in the rain with other world leaders at ceremony honoring WWI veterans (as if umbrellas aren't a thing), and his sending the troops to the border before the election was THE most naked political stunt the US military has ever been used for. Notice how the imminent threat of the "caravan" disappeared into thin-air in the last 72 hours?? It was similar to the Ebola scare Republicans pushed leading up to 2014. In reality, the Obama Administration handled it perfectly, letting the CDC do their job. The only person who died was the initial patient who was way too far gone to save. Everyone else pulled through, and there was no outbreak. It didn't stop Republicans from going on TV screaming about how people with Ebola were coming in from the southern border, or Chris Christie quarantining a nurse against her will for weeks despite no medical evidence showing she was a threat.
Oh, and for the record (back to the initial topic of this post), almost all of the land that is burning right now in California is FEDERAL, not state land. So if the wildfire is anyone's "fault", it's his and his interior department, no one else. Of course, it isn't anyone's fault, it's because there is a goddamn drought. But god knows he couldn't prevent himself from taking a shot at the state simply because it didn't vote for him, even as part of it is burning down. It has never been more clear he only views himself as the President of those who support him. There is no common ground to be found with a man like this. Imagine what kind of shitstorm would have ensued if Barack Obama ever talked like this during a natural disaster in a red-state.
It seems that Mr. Judge was allowed to submit written answers which was this: "I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today," he wrote. "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes. I am knowingly submitting this letter under penalty of felony."
There's a footnote on the executive summary: "[1] Mr. Judge was also questioned extensively about other allegations besides Dr. Ford’s."
Maybe they mean the "I totally never saw him act in a manner Dr. Ford describes." is the 'extensive questioning'.
It's hard to tell what to make of that because the report you are linking, from the Senate Judiciary Committee, was a partisan report. It was released without bipartisan input. It was specifically crafted to be released before the midterms to make it appear as if Kavanaugh was innocent. There are ulterior motives there. Clearly.
So anyway, was he interviewed? Was he not? Why was the supplemental background investigation released in a secure compartment facility with only 24 hours for 100 senators to leaf through the papers one at a time? If you think there wasn't partisan intent with this you are misled.
Director Wray testified to congress that the investigation was limited in scope.
“Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope" - Wray
Wray declined to answer if Don McGahn, the White houseses lawyer, directed the investigation as was widely reported by multiple sources.
Trump controlled the investigation into Kavanaugh. period. Trump has installed Whitaker in the Justice Department to control the Mueller investigation. Because he's guilty as sin.