She told her therapist, husband, and at least two friends about what happened to her. She told all of those people before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court. Yet again, unless you're alleging a conspiracy that she has been planning for years, that all lends credence to her allegation.
You seem to be confused... She doesn't want a hearing... she doesn't want a criminal trial... She just wants an investigation... What?
She gave them to the Washington Post. She would likely give them to investigators based upon that. But, again, we need an investigation for that to happen. She should not be forced to turn them over to the public or to some Senate committee that might leak them.
Do you remember who you hung out with at the pool during prom night in high school, what is supposed to be the most memorable night or most memorable party of the year?
But the purpose of the investigation is to gather evidence, which there will be none... You're just going to be getting statements... And statements can be addressed in a hearing.... You guys don't want to admit that...
Yes. At least most of them. The rest, maybe with a yearbook. An investigator could then talk to the maybes and figure out if they were there or not.
Well since you are all knowing and psychic... Whose statements are important? Who can establish pertinent facts? Should we call in every student from those two high schools? Or maybe have an investigator figure out who has information and who doesn't and establish some basic facts of the case...(e.g., where this party might have occurred).
How about any 5 that she (or her lawyer) wants? Fair? Just afford Kavanaugh the same privilege... EDIT: I'm only psychic on this... and the fact that the sun will rise in the East and set in the West, tomorrow....
Uhhh.... yeah. Could pretty much name everyone. I can recall quite a few parties from college and even HS days, and even though it was also nearly 30 years ago for me, I'd have a helluva lot better recollection of the high school days since it was basically the same people every time. Of course I wouldn't have the exact dates, but I guarantee you if i started thinking about specific events I could probably at least put some general locations and time-frames together (at least whose house it was, what time of year, what the party was for... if anything, etc. College would be much harder because I recall some house parties that must have had hundred+ people there, and I might have only known a small chunk of them. In that situation, I would be pretty much worthless as a witness (as I assume most other attendees would be as well).
One of my best friends in high school had his date cheat on him on prom night... If you were to make me guess between two people in a room on who that date was, I might as well flip a coin.... I don't remember how she looked at all... I'm a guy in my early twenties, high school wasn't that long ago... How do you expect anyone, especially someone who thought that was just another night at the time, to remember any pertinent details to any extent of reliability... It's not like we have this specific testimony to go on... As of now, practically all we have is the year in which this may have happened, and even if it's wrong, it's not like that disqualifies her testimony... that's a reasonable mistake... but that's the point... People don't generally remember things that happened forty years ago... Though trauma victims may push those memories out at times, they are also the best bet of achieving an accurate recollection, especially if there were no neutral witnesses... In other words, no witnesses that were violated or violating...
No because then it is saying that she and her lawyer need to do the investigation, which raises all sort of questions. It is much better to let a professional look into things, talk to the people, see what they say and where that leads. She shouldn't be in charge of the investigation either... And neither should he. Well, I'm assuming that you have seen the sun rise and set consistently. How many times have you been involved in a rape investigation? How well do you know the people involved? How about the circumstances? Seems like your psychic powers required a whole lot less empirical evidence to work on this case...
Not the people you hung out with... I mean the people you hung out with that were in the pool at a particular point in time in that party... I can name all of my friends that I went and partied with on prom night... I can't name where they were at any point of time during prom night with any sort of certainty... All I know is we took pictures at a house, went to prom, then partied at a friends house afterwards... Pretending like we can recollect timely details further than that, is ridiculous...
Well let's apply that to every investigation then. Nobody should ever ask about something that happened a few years ago, because who would remember? That is obviously absurd. Maybe you get a bunch of people saying they don't remember. Maybe you find out something interesting, because that day was important for some other reason or somebody has a very good memory or any of a number of other outcomes. That is why you investigate. You ask and see if they do. Pretty simple actually. Which is why you interview her first probably. Again, she is likely to be able to provide more information in such a setting than she is in public (where she can only claim things that she is sure about). Some basic topics to cover: who did she hang out with at the pool that day or in general that summer? Does she remember how she got to the house? Was it her car or somebody else's car? What type of car? What does she remember about the house? Was it brick? One-story or two (or maybe three in that area)? Anything about the interior that you remember? Anybody else that you think you remember there (descriptions or names)? People's memories are not homogeneous.
So you don't know anything about the case more than a couple of public statement but felt comfortable claiming a bunch of things that you can't possibly know. Thanks for the contribution.
Nope, still you, and yes, she might even realize a "criminal trial" is not likely (or even possible). You are stating things I already know. I literally stated that in the post you replied to. Still, it is absolutely the FBI's job to do background checks on federal employees. I'd say an alleged "attempted rape" is something that would be relevant to that background check. No? Even for a standard employment application, such an allegation would likely be "investigated" if it happened to be brought forth. The only difference is it wouldn't likely be brought forth in such a public manner for a rank and file federal employee or for a security clearance background check - it would only be found if the FBI "uncovered" it as part of their routine investigation. That didn't happen in his prior background checks. It is obvious this only came forth because the guy is a Supreme Court nominee, I don't deny that at all. None of that matters. All that should matter is whether the allegation is credible, and if it is then it needs investigation. If it turns out she is lying there should be repercussions for her too. If she wants an FBI investigation then she also needs to go on the record with the FBI, she should actually be the first person they talk to at the start of the investigation - and if she is found to be lying then she can be charged with lying to the FBI. This should actually have already happened, shouldn't even need to wait until Monday. But for the fact that for some reason some don't want this properly investigated - they'd rather go for political theater.
Are you suggesting we go after every person in a high school class in a sexual assault investigation forty years after it happened for every victim reporting sexual assault? Or is this case the exception? In which case, why is this particular case so important to you?
She said she was often at that pool. Ask who often joined her if she doesn't remember for sure. Then talk to them. Acting like your memory is the only memory and acts like everybody else's memory is ridiculous... And it isn't even a matter of better or worse. Memories work differently between different people.
And they have done background checks on Kavanaugh... Multiple ones... Turns out he's clean... What information suggests that the allegations are credible? Where does the investigation begin?
