MigL

Well since this thread has evolved from its original intent to whether B Kavanough is suitable for the Supreme Court... I do believe both Political Parties have played games with people's lives. The Democrat senator who originally received C Blasey Ford's letter sat on it for two months until the time it would have the most damaging effect on B Kavanough's nomination, and then leaked to the public against C Blasey Ford's wishes. I don't particularly think his responses were out of line; I might be just as embattled if I was being accused of such a thing. That being said, neither story passes the 'smell' test, but if I had to 'judge a book by its cover', I would tend to believe C Blasey Ford's version of the events. At this point, if B Kavanough has any integrity ( and cares about his country ), he should withdraw, and let the Republicans and Democrats sort out their mess. If he believes himself to be innocent of the charges brought against himself, he is then free to pursue defamation and libel charges against all parties concerned. This whole mess of appointing Supreme Court Judges who lean 'left' or 'right' is at the root of the problem. Politicians pass laws without doing due diligence, and then let the courts decide on the interpretation. We have the same problem here in Canada, laws which directly affect you and me, are decided by appointed ( for life ) judges, not elected politicians, who can , at election time, absolve themselves of any responsibility for bad laws, and get re-elected. But that is probably best left for another thread.

As Swansont said... "That's true of anyone accused of a crime. What do we do — stop prosecuting crimes based on eyewitness testimony, because it could be mistaken? People have been wrongly convicted of crimes and paid a much higher price than Kavanaugh will." That is why I don't like accusations and allegations made online, trough the press, or in 'job interviews'. This subverts Due Process as the rigor of testimony can't be directly challenged. On both sides. If you know the incident happened then file criminal charges We might actually never know if this particular incident happened or not.

This was my comment on the first page... "But maybe you're right, B Kavanough is a bad example to use because he might not get the appointment for other reasons." These political topics, however, seem to take on a life of their own and go in differing directions. But we're here now, so we'll make the best of it. Even though this is not a trial, and he won't be doing jail time, is his life not adversely affected by these allegations ? And is that fair if that is all they ever turn out to be ?

I will re-iterate my position... I don't like B Kavanough. I find C Blasey Ford much more likable and sympathetic. And I don't think he would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court. But that has nothing to do with which story is more 'robust' and guilt/innocence of the allegations. Justice should not be subjective.

I must have mis-read this, Swansont. "But if it were, a judge would instruct the jury that if they find a witness to not be credible, they may dismiss all of their testimony. Since Kavanaugh was evasive and untruthful, that would be grounds to do exactly that"

Only the last paragraph ( added in an edit ) was addressed to you, Ten oz. The first two were addressed to Swansont.

Tried to read your post. Got a headache> Gave up.

But it was you, Swansont, who brought up the analogy to a court case, by saying B Kavanough's testimony would be disallowed by a trial judge on the basis of his being an unbelievable witness. If you're going to open the door, expect me to walk in. I believe I've commented on her selective memory, where only the event is remembered, not the corroborating circumstances which would allow for fact checking, as the basis for for disallowing her testimony. IIRC R Reagan and O North provided that same kind of testimony in the Iran-Contra affair. Did you consider them truthful also ? I agree Ten oz, I'm hoping the FBI can get the therapist's notes. That would certainly get rid of the notion that this is a Democrat plot.

Justice and innocence/guilt has nothing to do with being likeable. We can all agree that C Blasey Ford is more likeable, and that B Kavanough's ideology, or political leanings, don't sit well with most of us ( yes, that means you Swansont and Ten oz ). But she doesn't remember when the party occurred, how she got there or how she left. The people that she remembers being there can't ( or won't ) corroborate her story. The only thing she is sure of is that B Kavanough tried to rape her when they were teens. If this was a real court case, her story would have holes big enough to drive a truck through. I'd be willing to bet the judge would instruct the jurors to disallow HER testimony.

Seems Airbrush has a new way of determining guilt or innocence. He doesn't need to give anyone the 'benefit of the doubt', or presumed innocence, if they are "pompous, privileged, spoiled boy, who actually looked drunk , belligerent, and hyper-partisan". Again, evidence ? Who needs evidence ? American jails would be a lot more full than they currently are. ( I wonder how he would react if he was being accused of sexual misconduct ??? ) Seems everyone is throwing around the distinction that this is a 'job interview' for B Kavanough, Who gets asked these kinds of questions for a 'job interview' ? Did any of the previous Supreme Court appointments get asked if they like beer ? And what, then, was the C Blasey Ford interview ? These interviews were little more than standard protocol; the vote would have gone down exactly the same even if there was no accusation made. Such is the partisan state of American politics.

Hope you washed your hand before you started typing your post. And, yes it can be unhealthy. But only if you have feelings of guilt and shame associated with it.

My gorilla friend says... "Its not the size; Its how you use it." What, I'm gonna disagree with a gorilla ?

This is not a complaints forum. You are here voluntarily.

I got that impression Tom because you seem certain that "By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself" Which makes it sound like you're convinced he's perjured himself. But if you say that isn't what you meant, I believe you. As for the length of FBI investigations... How long did the H Clinton E-mail probe last ? How long has the Trump/Russia collusion probe lasted, so far ? I simply presented an alternate reason for not wanting an FBI probe. As I've said, why not simply bring criminal charges against B Kavanough ? That would get rid of the impression that this is just a smear campaign, as it requires a much higher level of evidence. From INow's post I see that this has now become an 'us vs them' issue and Republicans will do all they can to ensure his confirmation. Even if it means having someone on the Supreme Court totally unsuitable for the job. Or even worse, a possible sexual predator.

As to your question Ten oz... "who suggested that ?" I believe it was yourself... "The claims should be investigated. Unfortunately it is Kavanough's supporters who do not want the FBI to get involved." Due process in this case would mean filing criminal charges against B Kavanough ( as has been pointed out by Swansont, Maryland has no Statute of Limitations ), and presenting valid evidence/testimony in a court of law.

One post that gave me that impression, Zapatos, is this one... "Kavanaugh may have painted himself into a corner by denying, and then painting himself as a choir boy in his interview. That may have triggered former targets of his into coming forward. And once a few people have done that, I think the bar is lowered for others (if there are more, but there usually are) to do so. I think his only way out is to withdraw, because if they republicans push this through, the democrats will have grounds to impeach (should they ever gain the necessary numbers) and then prosecute him. By that point there will be clearer evidence that he lied to congress and/or perjured himself. " But, as I said it is only an impression, and I could be wrong. If you need to know who posted it, you are welcome to go back and find it

To suggest that B Kavanough's supporters don't want a lengthy investigation because they fear the results is not quite accurate. They realize there is a limited window of opportunity to get this nomination passed, and for those opposing his nomination, a stall is as good as a win. A bigger factor is the fact that he's not a very likeable person, whereas C Blasey-Ford comes across as more sincere ( and vulnerable ? ). I get the impression that even some members of this forum have him already convicted ( Evidence ? Who needs evidence ? ). If the allegations are true, then obviously this is a good thing, and will keep him off the Supreme Court. If they are false, and politically motivated, I feel a great sadness for the American Political system, and that it has descended to such depths. Roll the dice !

Getting back to the OP... "Statistically false accusations of sexual assault from reputable victims are rare." What about disreputable victims, Airbrush ? ( since you made a valid distinction ) One of the B Kavanough accusers comes to mind ( the third, I believe ), being represented by M Avenatti ( also representing Stormy Daniels the porn star ). One of the claims she makes is that she attended several parties, while she was a college sophomore thrown by B Kavanough and his 'high school' friends where girls were gang-raped. She has no recollection if it was the first party she attended or the tenth where she was raped. Now it is certainly conceivable that a college girl would attend a high school party, but it stretches credibility that she would go back to these parties on multiple occasions. So, again, should ALL victims be believed ? If the accusations are disproved in a court of law, should charges ( certainly more than a misdemeanor ) be brought against the accuser ? ( this would also have a detrimental effect on reporting ) Can there be any compromise between the rights of the accused, and encouraging the accusers ( victims ) to report ?

"there is seldom ever anything to gain from falsely accusing someone" I hope you're never involved in a nasty divorce or custody battle with your ex, Ten oz.

Let's see... You would convert matter to light, then store it in matter and transport it conventionally, instead of allowing it to move at c, the maximum speed possible. Is it just me or does that ( even if was possible to encode all the needed information ) make no sense at all. Hope your 'future' never gets here !

I think this has been mentioned before by other members... We use complex and imaginary numbers to model physical processes also. Does that mean these observed processes don't actually happen ??? ( must be magic then )

Again this isn't about B Kavanough, or Arnie, or Conservatives. Accusations, true or false can be made against anyone. And while I'm sure you wouldn't personally attack someone who made an accusation, true or false, against you ( as the people you describe have done ), do you think for a minute that your life wouldn't change dramatically ( for the worse ) ?

Romulan 'Bird of Prey' starships use a miniature singularity or Black Hole ( see Star Trek TNG ). These micro BHs emit cpious amounts of Hawking Radiation due to their high temperature. This radiation is captured and utilized to provide power. In contrast Federation starships use matter/antimatter annihilation to provide power. (not sure of the purpose of dilithium crystals, and I couldn't find a 'tongue-in-cheek' emoticon )

This thread is like explaining Relativity... There is no such thing as absolute 'evil' or absolute 'good'. It all depends on your frame of reference.

The 'laws' of the Physics ( IE the universe ), are inherent in the differentiable symmetries of the action of a physical system. Look up Noether's theorem.