It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
I really don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds on this. I was drawing a loose comparison to make a point how conflicting accounts with exactly as much evidence in support of them are treated differently, subject to confirmation bias.
No, I'm neither condemning nor replacing anything. I think they reasonably carry about the same weight.
Or your suspicions are wrong. You're asserting that she basically framed her statement so that it would be technically true while remaining open to a favorable interpretation — which would imply a reluctance to lie in a public statement. We could therefore assume that if she were in fact reluctant to lie in a public statement, she would be even more adverse to lying to the FBI, lying to Congress or perjuring herself — which are all crimes.
Seems like this could be cleared up simply enough by having the FBI interview her, no?
originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: neutronflux
Don’t you have to have charges filled against you to be accused?
I'm fairly certain Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault without charges filed.
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: neutronflux
You feel that way about all the allegations about Obama and Hillary?
originally posted by: neutronflux
Want to talk about the allegations of rape and the Duke lacrosse case for example?
“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime.”
Hold, up. You gave me grief about using he dictionary and legal definitions for due process earlier and you link me a campus sexual misconduct opinion produced by Cornell as your opinion? The friggin irony.
If you would have read it, which you didn't, it discusses proposed changes to legislation, you know, LAWS, to modify the legal aspects of Title IX in relation campuses and how they handle accusations of sexual misconduct.
Guess you don't have a way to implement due process outside the legal system afterall since this opinion piece specifally disucsses the legal system and due process.
Due process, in the context of giving someone their 'fair chance', applies to trials.
originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Is a university disciplinary hearing a trial?
What about a highschool suspension?
Yet the supreme court ruled that even highschool students who were suspended are entitled to minimal due process.
The Supreme Court!!! Really? Aren't those the people who deal with judicial decisions? Link the specific case of the three main ones you want to discuss.
President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on July 9, 2018, filling the vacancy left by the retirement of Anthony Kennedy. When nominated, Kavanaugh was a sitting judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Senate Judiciary Committee began Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing on September 4.[1] During the confirmation process, Kavanaugh was accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford thirty-six years prior, while they were both in high school in 1982.-wiki
But it is necessary, because you're making a false comparison when you equate (passively or otherwise) an alleged attempted rape/sexual assault that has no substantiating evidence to an unsubstantiated claim that Dr. Ford coached someone about lie detector tests. The difference matters, at least to me, and that's why I called it out--how and why things are remembered and the emotional impact that it may have is a relevant thing.
Keep in mind, though, that Ms. McLean didn't exactly refute the ex-boyfriend's claim, as I discuss in my OP here. Like I said, the weeds matter, but if you don't want to go down that road, so be it.
At least we agree that the polygraph-coaching issue is another irrelevant issue, but as I note in that other thread, it's just yet another example of how 'the weeds' matter in these types of issues. That thread is based on the last point in my comment to which you replied here.
My suspicions could be wrong, sure, but my assessment of how she worded her "denial" is not. I have been a part of the legal field working directly with prosecutors for more than a decade of my 39-year life, so I can spot this behavior and ways of speaking from a mile away.
No, I don't believe that anything would be cleared up at all, nor do I believe that this FBI investigation was necessary. The results, apparently, are about what I expected: More of the same non-evidence and lack of corroboration. A magical interview with a former FBI attorney who wasn't present for the alleged assault isn't going to blow away all of that.
Or your suspicions are wrong. You're asserting that she basically framed her statement so that it would be technically true while remaining open to a favorable interpretation — which would imply a reluctance to lie in a public statement. We could therefore assume that if she were in fact reluctant to lie in a public statement, she would be even more adverse to lying to the FBI, lying to Congress or perjuring herself — which are all crimes.
Seems like this could be cleared up simply enough by having the FBI interview her, no?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
This has become such a beautiful disaster to watch plop out.