Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by g8r.tom, Sep 20, 2018.
The Democrats want the FBI to investigate what happened at a high school party 36 years ago.
Normal teenage girls gossip and talk gratuitously among themselves. It's kinda a thing to reference and/or mock in popular culture since it's so ubiquitous, actually. This shouldn't be a surprise to you if you've reached or surpassed puberty.
It is also normal for children/adolescents and teens to repress and hide feelings about sexual assaults and or unwanted sexual contact/advances for all kinds of fears and reasons. But you knew that, too. I know that some people try to see the world in black and white as it helps not to think and try to understand individual behaviors but everyone reacts differently to stress or unusual (being kind here) events in their lives. If you go back to the first quote in my reply it kinda helps clear that conundrum up. Now, Im not saying what she said is true about Kav. But many people believe it a lie (refer back to the quote again). Let me go on record one more time that I think he will probably be a good SC justice. But over 400 days to keep a keep a seat for open for Trump to appoint was no problem. Those supremes will be fine until they get #9.
I read it carefully, by my understanding none of that happened. A person may not: (1)(i) engage in sexual contact with another without the consent of the other; and My understanding of the situation is that no sexual contact occurred, assault and battery yes. (ii) 1. employ or display a dangerous weapon, or a physical object that the victim reasonably believes is a dangerous weapon; No weapon has been talked about. 2. suffocate, strangle, disfigure, or inflict serious physical injury on the victim or another in the course of committing the crime; None of that is in the data, covering your face is not included. 3. threaten, or place the victim in fear, that the victim, or an individual known to the victim, imminently will be subject to death, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement, serious physical injury, or kidnapping; or She might have been in fear but not reasonably those things. 4. commit the crime while aided and abetted by another; It seems that the "other" allowed her to get out of a room she was "locked" in. Seems unreasonable to me if they were even trying to do anything much to her, no matter how drunk they might be. (2) engage in sexual contact with another if the victim is a substantially cognitively impaired individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know the victim is a substantially cognitively impaired individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual; Not helpless as she escaped, probably somewhat drunk but not that drunk that she could not escape two males. (3) engage in sexual contact with another if the victim is under the age of 14 years, and the person performing the sexual contact is at least 4 years older than the victim; Does not apply. (4) engage in a sexual act with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the sexual act is at least 21 years old; or Does not apply. (5) engage in vaginal intercourse with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the act is at least 21 years old. No intercourse and even if does not apply. (b) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of sexual offense in the third degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. So to me a careful reading indicates this does not apply to the alleged activity no matter who might be doing them. Alex the Gator's analysis would be interesting to me, but then any post of his is informative.
Actually, no, that isn't true. Teens especially are not prepared to cope with traumatic events or stress, as the vast majority of them lack the maturity. It's why they're so chatty and gossipy about even the smallest drama. They might not broadcast their more embarrassing issues to their parents or other adults, but they contemporaneously talk about them with a trusted friend(s). Take Roy Moore: the girls who came forward to accuse him were ultimately deemed credible because they had evidence to back up their claims. Others corroborated their stories. Neither accuser has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever to support their allegations. To paraphrase a journalist: "fantastical claims made with fantastical timing require fantastical proof."
Yes the FBI knows how to do things like that. They do it all the time. Here are just a few of them: https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/5-big-cold-cases-that-had-major-breaks-in-2017 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/james-ricks-cold-case-solved Republicans are fighting an FBI investigation tooth and nail. This tells me they are afraid of what the FBI will turn up. Ford is welcoming the FBI investigation-which tells me she is not trying to hide anything. There is literally no good reason why the FBI should not look at this. Republicans have not given a reason. Likewise if Republicans dont want to hear from an eyewitness, we know they probably are scare of what he will say. Its pretty straightforward. One side wants to use a neutral party to investigate and talk to the eyewitness under oath. The other side is strongly against a neutral party investigating the claims and want to hide the eyewitness so nobody can talk to him. Without hearing any facts, just that behavior alone is enough for me to lean towards believing Ford.
Why Rape and Trauma Survivors Have Fragmented and Incomplete Memories James Hopper, Ph.D., trains investigators, prosecutors, judges and military commanders on the neurobiology of sexual assault. David Lisak, Ph.D., is a forensic consultant, researcher, national trainer and the board president of 1in6.
Is this something you learned from experience? I wasn't sure why you shared this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ed-whelan-takes-apos-leave-010751546.html You are right....it did get interesting .....this nut job is now on a leave from the conservative think tank. Even conservatives now think he should visit crazy town with his lunatic theory. Buh Bye.
Yes, I learned it from experience. I was a criminal defense attorney for many years. The seminal case on this point of Florida law was decided in 1971 (well before my time). I relied on it and its progeny in several cases, and had great success. If Maryland law follows Florida law on this point, the so-called facts of the second accusation do not constitute a sexual crime or felony.
None of that, nor anything else you've posted, is responsive to @gatorev12's point about Ford's and Ramirez's lack of corroborating witnesses to vouch for them having made contemporaneous references to the alleged incidents. I know, I know. This is the part where you say, "c'mon now....I'm just a 63-year old retired gym coach....not here for serious argument...and now let me tell you....some corn pone story that goes nowhere....." You're like the resident Jon Stewart of the board.
Actually, and factually, he submitted his resignation but it was rejected. He took a voluntary leave of absence. If liberals will pause their liberal orgasmic spasms long enough to look for facts, one can find this. Mea Maxima Culpa | National Review If only liberals were so principled when they admitted a mistake. Oops. Your liberal bias is showing.
Kavanaugh has denied even being there and all witnesses for both parties have issued statements that they have no knowledge that this incident ever occurred. How did we even get here?
I'm dead serious.
You mean the facts that it was a doppelganger? Yea, that's the ticket.
Knowing the democrats would pull shenanigans like this, do you REALLY think Kavanaugh wasn't thoroughly vetted. C'mon man, the dems went back to high school to make up something that couldn't be proved. This still wouldn't be an issue except for a liberal press. The country be damned we hate Trump and want to kill babies.
The FBI does NOT investigate this type of criminal allegation. If this woman wanted us to take her quest for justice seriously, she should have gone through normal channels first. Ie: report it to Maryland law enforcement, who would have jurisdiction here. NOT go to a politician asking to make an anonymous allegation. Just because I get into a car accident with Hillary Clinton and strongly suspect her of drinking and driving doesn't mean I get to demand the CIA investigate and the NSA to tap her phone records, etc. It doesn't work like that. And it's completely immaterial whether the FBI interviews Judge under oath or Judge provides a written statement to Congress that acts as official testimony: BOTH are felonies if you're caught lying to either. So your claims that "he has something to hide" is nonsense. He's already on the record as saying he never witnessed it and can be held liable *NOW* for that if it's established he's lying. Frankly, the Democrats tossing out such patently false nonsense is evidence enough they are full of chit and just trying to stall for stalling's sake. Which let's be real: you darn well know it's true since you've freely admitted the Democratic leadership had to #resist to have their base take them seriously.
There was a lot more to it than that. Whelen laid out a bunch of facts that fit perfectly with Ford's allegations, and filled in the glaring gaps in her story in a way that made sense of it all. Based on the information Whelen presented, it is very reasonable to suspect that the Kavanaugh lookalike Whelen named, Chris Garrett, is the one responsible for what happened to Ford. She conveniently switched the identity to Kavanaugh so she could use the incident to pursue her partisan political aims. Remember (or maybe you didn't know?), according to the therapist's notes from the first time Ford told this story during couple's therapy in 2012, Ford said it was boys, "from an elitist boy's school," who were, "high ranking members of society in Washington." The therapist's notes reportedly don't mention any names. Google is in on the conspiracy and is trying to cover it up. Garrett's name was all over Google after Whelen first tweeted his theory, and now it's been almost completely scrubbed. If you can find a a Google link to a page with Chris Garrett's name on it in relation to Whelen's tweets, check back later and the link will likely be gone.
Politics of course. Now we have the NYT looking at HS year books for idiotic assumptions. Kavanaugh’s Yearbook Page Is ‘Horrible, Hurtful’ to a Woman It Named They have no idea what those comments meant, yet some female is mad about it. Mad about a foolish poem, just mad about anything and everything.
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.