Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thus far, I think the Dems are winning in the court of public opinion, relying on hysterical emotion instead of facts.
On the facts, rational people watching understand where Mitchell is going and how she has sewn seeds of doubt. However, many watching will not see it that way, because they're focused on emotions.
Kavenaugh will probably have to be withdrawn. Let's see if they can bring down Amy Barrett.
What did you guys think after Ford used and thoroughly explained processes/words such as etiology, multifactorial, hippocampus, ptsd, uproarious laughter, norepinephrine, etc. etc. etc. then revealed:
No, she said there WAS an AV record via the test administrator's computer, and that it might have been the day after the funeral. The test was given in a meeting room at the hotel, for convenience, since she had a flight to NH upcoming.
No, she said there was a computer set up and she assumed it was being recorded but did not know.
Ford described the two boys as drunk and laughing. They all wrestled on the bed. Sounds to me like they were having fun and got too rough. That's why I'm interested in hearing what the boy who says he was there has to say. If they are going to question Mark Judge, who says he wasn't there, they should question him, too.
"Wrestled?" No, she was fighting off a sexual attack. The attackers may have been "having fun" - Christine Blasey (Ford, as she is now) certainly wasn't. She went upstairs to use the bathroom, never made it as she was grabbed and forced and locked into the adjacent bedroom, where she was physically overpowered, and assaulted by two drunken young men who both outnumbered and outweighed her. That's not exactly "having fun and getting too rough".
I agree that Mark Judge needs to be questioned, and the other boy should be located if possible and questioned as well - but if he said he was there, I missed that - can you provide a link? Also, this would reveal his identity, which has remained unknown as far as I can tell.
. I think it's time for the FBI to step in to help locate these men and provide answers to some pretty obvious questions, if Kavanaugh doesn't step out.
Why do you keep asking the same question? Whoever has jurisdiction, just as in the rest of America. No statute of limitations on rape in Maryland. Investigate the allegations wherever they happened, and have local authorities arrest the perpetrators if warranted. If the accuser made knowingly false allegations, arrest her. Not rocket science. Look into it. That's fair.
I agree. The problem is that the accusers have so far refused to file a complaint in the correct jurisdiction(s):
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The FBI has already told everyone involved that they do not have the jurisdiction to investigate the allegations.
Furthermore...
Quote:
"Spokesmen for state and county police said Friday they would not investigate unless they received a complaint — which they said has not happened. State police also said that, in any case, they have an agreement with county police that means local officials investigate such crimes in their jurisdiction."
The accusers HAVE to file a complaint with the appropriate local/state authorities to have the allegations investigated. They STILL have not done so. Why not?
It's the Republicans who control the hearing who wouldn't let anyone else be called as a witness for either side. We wouldn't be hearing from anyone other than Kavanaugh.
If the allegations are true, democrats should start their impeachment strategy for Kavanaugh now. Swetnick's allegations are very serious, and would have left many witnesses. Investigate them, with private investigators at first if law enforcement won't help, gather evidence, go to authorities, and impeach him in six months or a year.
Thus far, I think the Dems are winning in the court of public opinion, relying on hysterical emotion instead of facts.
On the facts, rational people watching understand where Mitchell is going and how she has sewn seeds of doubt. However, many watching will not see it that way, because they're focused on emotions.
Kavenaugh will probably have to be withdrawn. Let's see if they can bring down Amy Barrett.
Barrett is not qualified yet for the SCOTUS. She's only been an appeals court judge for what like 1 year?
I think maybe that's what Mitchell was getting at with questions about if the test was recorded on video. A check into the examiner may be in order.
The credibility of the polygraph is now in question. It doesn't detect lies, it detects physiological factors. You can't take it on a day when you are already enotional and physically upset, like right after a funeral.
This is why I said she should be asked in she was on any medication at or before the time of the poly. If she had taken anything for anxiety (flying, funeral) it would negate the test.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
