Kavanaugh Hearing

And you are ignoring the fact she had actual physical proof of an incident between her and Jameis. What physical proof does Ford have that she was even at the party? Eyewitness testimony? Anything?

So how are the cases even tangentially related? Getting interviewed by a hostile investigator would account for some of those changes, wouldn’t they? What is Ford’s reason for EVERYONE that was there not remembering the party? Everyone but her is mistaken?

 

I stepped out for a while, but I am surprised we haven't heard yet that an FBI investigation cannot possibly be unbiased because Chris Wray and Kavanaugh both worked for the Bush administration.

 

That's why Trump has ordered that it be done in less than a week.

 

Winston (and Casher and Darby) said consensual sex. Kinsman said rape. The physical evidence contradicted her story. Yet, you believe Kinsman, but you write off Dr. Ford. Sounds like you believe women only when it's convenient to you.

 

Like I have said before, alien abductees have passed polygraphs before. It doesn’t mean they were abducted.

 

Yet, Brett Kavanaugh is on the record attesting to the usefulness of polygraphs for testing the credibility of witnesses.

 

Trump put out a statement saying that he has ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental background investigation that is to be "limited in scope" and must conclude within one week from today.

Kavanaugh said that he will "continue to cooperate" with the investigation process, and Mark Judge told the Judiciary Committee that he would "cooperate with any law enforcement agency that is assigned to confidentially investigate these allegations."

 

Sure..



Also there is no me in assumptions.

 

It also means they weren't lying according to the tests. I don't know what specific cases you refer to, but I wouldn't put abductions past those damn aliens.

 

If they're rapists and murderers, why not kidnappers?

 

Bill Cosby was America's dad, telling black teenagers to pull up their pants, and selling Jell-O. OJ Simpson was the gregarious sideline reporter starring in comedy movies and Hertz commercials.

What somebody does in public does not always match what they do when nobody is watching (or only the right people are).

Reputational analyses are not really very good in the situation of a crime done in private.

 

I don't want to get into an argument about the scope of a FOIA opinion, but I don't know that a recognition that polygraphs are used in law enforcement examinations and that public release would present a risk of circumvention of the law (the predicates for FOIA Exemption 7(E)) are exactly the ringing endorsement of polygraphs that you think it is.

I personally think polygraphs are all but worthless, but even I would still say that polygraph procedures are exempt under Exemption 7.

 

DNA might have proved they were together, but not that it was rape. A rape kit cannot necessarily demonstrate an act was rape rather than consensual sex.

Winston also argued it was consensual.

Sure, she doesn't have direct evidence putting them at the same party. It was 37 years ago. That shouldn't be surprising. But she has sworn under oath about allegations made years ago to her therapist and confided in others, which is to say she didn't just conjure this up out of thin air.

What point haven't I addressed?

 

What does FSU's reputation over 30 years have to do with whether Jameis is or isn't a rapist? Apples and oranges comparing the reputation of an institution with the acts of an individual. By that reasoning, there wouldn't be rapist athletes at places like Stanford or Vandy because they have good reputations. Yet there were.

Now, their reputation does impact whether we could expect them to cover for Jameis, which they clearly did, but not whether he did it in the first place.

 

I could say the same for you. If Jameis isn’t a rapist due to his friend’s testimony, then Kavanaugh didn’t attack Ford since his alleged accomplice said that he didn’t. Fun to assume, isn’t it? Can Ford blame a botched investigation? I don’t think so, since she waited 35 years to report it.

For the last damn time. Kinsman had ACTUAL verifiable proof of an incident between her and Jameis, Ford does not have ANY PROOF of an incident between her and Kavanaugh. Her 3 corroborating witnesses, zip. Date or location? Zip.

So what does she have to prove that she was even at a party with Kavanaugh? Her word? Well, what VERIFIABLE PROOF does she have? No DNA, no witnesses, nothing. So how can she prove they were at the same place? She cannot, can she?

 

there was no physical evidence because the TPD helped the FSU clown cops and the AD to make sure there was no evidence.

 

Anita Hill investigation took 3 days, of course I don't think too many were satisfied with that one.

A week really should have been the minimum, not a maximum. That isn't to say there should have been no upper limit. Should have been not less than 1 week but not more than 2 weeks from today, or something like that allowing as many agents as necessary to do it in time. Then hold a new hearing after that report is complete. Dems agreed to a fairly dumb "deal", since it's basically not a deal of any kind, other than Flake's vote and assurances that he personally "couldn't proceed" through the next steps without this slight delay, for all the dems knew it could have been 2 days or McConnell could have pushed it to a vote with or without Flake (if he had the votes, certainly he would be doing just that).

 

Anita Hill's took 3 days.

 

&

Fair points.

My post though, was a gratuitous jab at FSU, not actually intended to support the idea that that's all we needed (and TIC as to thst point anyway...)

Now, if yall like, we can rehash the whole JW saga...if you really need me to spell out why believing jw's vic, is not all inconsistent with disbelieving doc Ford....

Not a problem really, since i enjoy smearing FSUs steller reputstion..