Jump to content

Trump court pick tearfully denies woman's sexual assault allegation


webfact

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Credo said:

Her memories are neither repressed or recovered.   She remembered it when it happened and afterwards.   She simply did not report it and she explained why.   So no repressed, no recovered memories.   

 

I based my comment on the report that said that the Councillor's notes said that she was not at first  able to say who her attacker was, and only remembered later. (and no, I will not search out that report).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There are three accusations to be heard.  .How about Ford's evidence?  She has taken the polygraph test and the result was that she was not lying about being sexually assaulted by Bret at just 15 years of age. 

Even the Senate Dems do not really want to investigate the latter two accusations because they are patently ridiculous. At least Dr Ford was credible. Doesn't make it true, but credible, even if she lied about not being able to fly to an earlier meeting with the Senate.

As to the polygraph. She was asked 2 questions only. No series of baseline questions to establish a pattern. No question on whether she had taken any medication. A beta-blocker can calm down any adverse reaction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Tug said:

All this could have been easy to settle with the requested fbi investigation why dident the republicans say ok?eather he is dirty or they want to sow anger and division not good not good at all

 

He had 6 and could have had a 7th IF the dems had not hidden this to use as a grenade at the last moment. Obviously they leaked it to the press and have no ethics whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

He had 6 and could have had a 7th IF the dems had not hidden this to use as a grenade at the last moment.

 

You say "could have had a seventh..." like it's no longer possible.  Why can't he still have a seventh investigation now that new accusations have come to light?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

He had 6 and could have had a 7th IF the dems had not hidden this to use as a grenade at the last moment. Obviously they leaked it to the press and have no ethics whatsoever.

 Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims?  Thought not. :coffee1:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

You say "could have had a seventh..." like it's no longer possible.  Why can't he still have a seventh investigation now that new accusations have come to light?

 

Because it's a delaying tactic and not in 'good faith'.  They could have brought it to the front 45 days earlier but they played politics.  Now we have lost 45 days.  This is disingenuous and you know it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

On the scale of sexual assault this is very low key and she doesn't remember when, how, where ,year, time or who was there

 

 

She was 'outed' after asking to remain anonymous 

 

 

The prosecutor was weak i agree

 

 

Not at all. She's had 36 years to file charges. No corroboration at all. 

 

 

 

I don't agree with his positions but, unlike you, I have an open mind and can see the witch hunt.

You really have no concept of sexual assault... like there is "minor" sexual assault.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

Because it's a delaying tactic and not in 'good faith'.  They could have brought it to the front 45 days earlier but they played politics.  Now we have lost 45 days.  This is disingenuous and you know it. 

 

Who are "we"?

Considering it's a life-time appointment, and that the SC won't collapse if the process is delayed, vetting the candidate would seem to bear more gravity than some imagined hurried schedule.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Even the Senate Dems do not really want to investigate the latter two accusations because they are patently ridiculous. At least Dr Ford was credible. Doesn't make it true, but credible, even if she lied about not being able to fly to an earlier meeting with the Senate.

As to the polygraph. She was asked 2 questions only. No series of baseline questions to establish a pattern. No question on whether she had taken any medication. A beta-blocker can calm down any adverse reaction.

 

What she was given is called the Federal You Phase Zone Comparison Test, which is one of the primary testing formats by the federal government and one listed in the Meta-Analytic Survey of Criterion Accuracy of Validated Polygraph Techniques Report Published by the American Polygraph Association.

 

And no, beta-blockers do not block adverse reaction, they reduce all response outcome equally and so have no bearing on the result as has been evidenced by peer reviewed studies.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BobBKK said:

 

Of course I do dear Slip it's called FACTS.  They had it for 45 days now want to delay until the midterms.  It's obvious.

 

It's clear that the agenda for both sides is political in the extreme. The President for nominating his stooge in the first place and the Democrats for trumping up (no pun intended) reasons for turning the nomination down.

 

However, if the nomination is eventually refused, it can only be good for the American Justice System, which should NEVER be politicised.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...